ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2026
From the margins to the core: village and community scientists should increasingly shape the future of ethnobiology and ethnoecology.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethnobiology was not only created as a field to understand the relationship between humans and their environments; it emerged from direct engagement with rural and Indigenous communities. Yet the great paradox is that, despite its field-based origins, the discipline continues to be reproduced within urban academic spaces that often exclude those who are assumed to be at the very heart of knowledge production. In this editorial, we do not simply propose the "inclusion" of rural or Indigenous communities. Instead, we call for a radical repositioning of the knowledge itself: Who can be considered a "scientist"? And who holds the authority to define scientific knowledge? We reject the assumption that urban academic affiliation or formal credentials are the sole basis for scientific credibility, and instead propose a different standard: knowledge should be assessed by its depth, explanatory power, and integrity when co-produced in genuine partnership with living communities. Drawing on our own experiences as researchers raised in rural villages, peripheral regions, and migrant/refugees' communities, we argue that local and Indigenous ecological knowledge is not a "raw material" for scientific research, but a form of scientific thinking in its own right with its own logic, observations, and rigour, and its own way of assessing, adapting and enacting this knowledge. We therefore call for a further step ahead in the classical structure of ethnobiology: not merely the inclusion of communities in research stages, but the recognition of some of their scholars as the core producers of scientific knowledge, from the formulation of research questions to the interpretation, dissemination and enactment of results. This transformation of the locus aims not only to improve ethnobiology as a field but also to redefine it. Without this redefinition, science will remain detached from the realities it claims to understand. With it, ethnobiology can become a more honest, more courageous discipline, better equipped to confront biodiversity loss, climate change, and the reconfiguration of more-than-human-nature relationships.
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.