SynthesisAmbio2026
Co-production of Arctic sea ice knowledge: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Ambio, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Arctic sea ice is a vital component of the global climate system and a key indicator of climate change. Collaborations between Western scientists and Indigenous Knowledge holders advance understanding of the cryosphere by integrating diverse observations of sea ice physics, ecosystems, and food webs. As interest in collaborative research grows, co-production of knowledge (CPK) has emerged as a leading participatory approach in Arctic research. This study reviews multidisciplinary literature on sea ice knowledge co-production using a systematic literature review. Of more than 65 000 peer-reviewed articles on sea ice, only 461 mention engagement with Arctic Indigenous communities, and just 25 explicitly describe collaborative engagement with communities. By highlighting the presence and absence of key CPK tools and concepts in existing research, we uncover gaps in the documentation and practice of sharing research benefits with communities and identify opportunities for transparency in CPK practice.
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.