Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41492525›Full record

ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2026

Towards a minimum reporting standard to promote animal welfare and data quality in biologging research.

Allison R Payne, Conner M Hale, Sarah C Davidson, Jessica M Kendall-Bar, Roxanne S Beltran

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Animal biotelemetry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Allison R PayneDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, 130 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA.
Conner M HaleDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, 130 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA.
Sarah C DavidsonDepartment of Migration, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Radolfzell, Germany.
Jessica M Kendall-BarCenter for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA.
Roxanne S BeltranDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, 130 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last six decades, the biologging research community has reduced instrument effects on study animals by miniaturizing devices, employing sophisticated release mechanisms, and developing other novel technological advancements. However, biologging devices can still impact animal physiology, behavior, and demography-the very biological metrics the instruments are meant to measure. Recent meta-analyses have emphasized the subjectivity of field-wide "rules of thumb" such as the 3% rule, but opportunities to quantify effects more objectively can be expensive or impossible to implement when instrumenting new species. There is therefore a time-sensitive need for systematic reporting of biologging instrument characteristics based on known effects to animal welfare and data quality. We used 202 biologging impact studies from the last thirty years to draw broad, multispecies connections between instrument characteristics and animal physiology, behavior, and/or demography. We build on impact studies that focus on a single species, instrument type, or attachment method to offer solutions applicable across those taxa, technologies, and methodologies. From the literature, we distilled eight best practices for biologging researchers with a particular focus on minimum reporting standards as a low-cost, high-impact way to promote animal welfare and data quality. We propose a preliminary minimum reporting standard, informed by the literature and presented as a machine-readable checklist, that biologging researchers can include with their manuscripts or data submissions to provide data for future meta-analyses. We also present an example of a completed checklist to demonstrate the feasibility of such a standard and a plan for community input and adoption via the International Bio-Logging Society. Robust biologging infrastructure, beginning with a minimum reporting standard informed by the literature on instrument impacts, will facilitate the expansion of biologging across the globe and across disciplines while ensuring animal welfare and improving data quality. As biologging instruments become less expensive and more accessible, researchers, journals, and funders are better positioned than ever to broaden and implement these standards. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40317-025-00438-w.

Indexed as

Animal welfareBiologgingImpactReporting standard

Identifiers

PMID41492525
PMCPMC12764506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.