Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37649154›Full record

ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2023

Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing.

Catharine E Krebs, Celean Camp, Helder Constantino, Lilas Courtot, Owen Kavanagh, Janine McCarthy, Melanie-Jasmin Ort, Shaarika Sarasija, Emily R Trunnell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Catharine E KrebsPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 5100 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20016-4131, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6405-2665
Celean CampFund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, Cawley House, 149-155 Canal Street, Nottingham, NG1 7HR, UK.
Helder ConstantinoHumane Society International Europe, Avenue des Arts 50, Brussels, 1000, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-1779
Lilas CourtotAnimal Free Research UK, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5507-7548
Owen KavanaghYork St. John University, Lord Mayor's Walk, York, YO31 7EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2599-8511
Janine McCarthyPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 5100 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20016-4131, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5028-0483
Melanie-Jasmin OrtInstitute for Chemistry and Biochemistry, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 20, 14195, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5248-6071
Shaarika SarasijaHumane Society International Canada, 372 St. Catherine St. West Suite 319, Montreal, QC, H3B 1A2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3610-2178
Emily R TrunnellPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA, 23510, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6320-1289

Funding

Animal Protection Commissioner of Berlin
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing recognition that animal methods bias, a preference for animal-based methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, can impact the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. Following April 2022 workshop about animal methods bias in scientific publishing, a coalition of scientists and advocates formed a Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB). The COLAAB has developed this guide to be used by authors who use nonanimal methods to avoid and respond to animal methods bias from manuscript reviewers. It contains information that researchers may use during 1) study design, including how to find and select appropriate nonanimal methods and preregister a research plan, 2) manuscript preparation and submission, including tips for discussing methods and choosing journals and reviewers that may be more receptive to nonanimal methods, and 3) the peer review process, providing suggested language and literature to aid authors in responding to biased reviews. The author's guide for addressing animal methods bias in publishing is a living resource also available online at animalmethodsbias.org, which aims to help ensure fair dissemination of research that uses nonanimal methods and prevent unnecessary experiments on animals.

Indexed as

Peer ReviewPublishingAnimalsalternatives to animal testinganimal methods biaspeer reviewpublishing

Identifiers

PMID37649154
PMCPMC10602554

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.