ArticlePLoS biology2019
Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nectar Robbery by Native and Invasive Bumblebees Reduces Floral Rewards but Not Seed Production inEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Supercharged penguins-supplementary feeding reshapes tawaki/Fiordland penguin winter migration.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Article
- Update of species limits in thePeerJ · 2026Article
- Phylogeographic analysis of long-legged bats,PeerJ · 2025Article
- Article
- Unveiling hidden aspects of GPS deployment on wildlife: A multistep and transdisciplinary approach to urban wild boar monitoring.MethodsX · 2024Article
- Experimental evaluation of genetic variability based on DNA metabarcoding from the aquatic environment: Insights from the LerayEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Human disturbance in riparian areas disrupts predator-prey interactions between grizzly bears and salmon.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Crucial but Neglected: Limited Availability of Animal Welfare Courses in Education of Wildlife Researchers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- The cost of research: Lasting effects of capture, surgery and muscle biopsy on brown bear (Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023Article
- A Review of Non-Invasive Sampling in Wildlife Disease and Health Research: What's New?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- The acute physiological response of polar bears to helicopter capture.The Journal of wildlife management · 2022Article
- Casting the Net Widely for Change in Animal Welfare: The Plight of Birds in Zoos, Ex Situ Conservation, and Conservation Fieldwork.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- An Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to Evaluate the Application of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Mammals' Conservation: The Case of the Northern White Rhinoceros (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Correction: Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite abundant focus on responsible care of laboratory animals, we argue that inattention to the maltreatment of wildlife constitutes an ethical blind spot in contemporary animal research. We begin by reviewing significant shortcomings in legal and institutional oversight, arguing for the relatively rapid and transformational potential of editorial oversight at journals in preventing harm to vertebrates studied in the field and outside the direct supervision of institutions. Straightforward changes to animal care policies in journals, which our analysis of 206 journals suggests are either absent (34%), weak, incoherent, or neglected by researchers, could provide a practical, effective, and rapidly imposed safeguard against unnecessary suffering. The Animals in Research: Reporting On Wildlife (ARROW) guidelines we propose here, coupled with strong enforcement, could result in significant changes to how animals involved in wildlife research are treated. The research process would also benefit. Sound science requires animal subjects to be physically, physiologically, and behaviorally unharmed. Accordingly, publication of methods that contravenes animal welfare principles risks perpetuating inhumane approaches and bad science.
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.