ArticleAmbio2025
Coping with an antagonistic climate: Researchers' perspectives.
Article in Ambio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Swedish researchers face an antagonistic climate of denial, scepticism, and distrust. Despite Sweden's reputation as a climate forerunner, our interviews with 30 researchers show problems for conducting climate research in the country. Researchers use diverse communication and public engagement strategies, but often risk increasing exposure to problematic criticism and damage to their reputations. Interviewees considered themselves largely trusted, but reported attacks towards themselves and their research results. Anticipated misuse and unfounded criticism of research showed to be a decision factor for publishing. Threats and harassment have led to researchers self-censoring, avoiding media, or disengaging from public engagement. The societal implementation of research is disrupted by claims against researchers' trustworthiness. This article suggests that researchers should be provided training, funding, and time to manage public engagement. Research institutions should take seriously the risks to their staff. Researchers should consider how different communication choices may affect their perceived trustworthiness to key audiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.