Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40515762›Full record

ArticleAmbio2025

Coping with an antagonistic climate: Researchers' perspectives.

Laila Mendy, Mikael Karlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laila MendyUppsala University, Geocentrum, Villavägen 16, 75236, Uppsala, Sweden. Laila.mendy@geo.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8597-8301
Mikael KarlssonUppsala University, Geocentrum, Villavägen 16, 75236, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

Mistra DIA 2019/28Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas 2021-00416
6 · The paper itself

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

Climate ChangeResearch PersonnelCommunicationHumansSwedenTrustClimate denialClimate scepticismDisinformationDistrustScience communicationTrust

Identifiers

PMID40515762
PMCPMC12569219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.