Journal Database

At the editorial and peer review stages, animal methods bias may result in a lengthy revision period or, ultimately, rejection if authors fail to comply with requests for animal experiments. To help minimize these undesirable outcomes, the COLAAB has compiled a database of journals with a track record of publishing nonanimal studies for consideration upon submission. Submitting to an appropriate journal may not guarantee a total avoidance of the effects of animal methods bias, but it can reduce them. Choosing the right journal is also important for maximizing a study’s reach and impact.

To determine if a journal is the right fit, it is important to check that the study fits within its scope, and recent issues should also be checked for articles that contain similar methodology as the study ready for submission. Considering the journal’s audience is also crucial to this decision. Other compelling journal characteristics may also be considered, such as open access, open peer review, and the likelihood of the journal to accept negative results. (For more details on open peer review, see the text below the database.)

In addition to the database below, the following journal selectors can help determine an appropriate set of journals for a manuscript based on its abstract:

SciRev is another valuable web resource in which authors share their experiences with specific journals’ review processes and can provide insight as to whether a particular journal may be a good fit for a given manuscript.

Impact Factor
Title Publisher Impact factor Open access Open peer review ARRIVE guidelines URL
Scientific Reports Nature 4.6 Yes No Yes https://www.nature.com/srep/
Sensors MDPI 3.9 Yes No Yes https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Stem Cell Reports Cell Press 5.9 Yes No Yes https://www.cell.com/stem-cell-reports/home
Stem Cell Research & Therapy Springer Nature 6.8 Yes No No
Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology Elsevier 4.8 Yes No Yes https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/synthetic-and-systems-biotechnology
Toxicological Sciences OUP/Society of Toxicology 3.8 Yes No No https://academic.oup.com/toxsci
Toxicology in Vitro Science Direct 3.2 Yes No Yes https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/toxicology-in-vitro
Toxicology Letters Elsevier 3.5 Yes No Yes https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/toxicology-letters
Trends in Biotechnology Cell Press 17.3 Yes No No https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/home

A Note on Open Peer Review

Open peer review can refer to various aspects of the peer review process, including (1) open identities, when authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identities; (2) open reports, when review reports are published with the final manuscript; (3) open participation, when the wider community can contribute to the review; or (4) open pre-review manuscripts, when manuscripts are made immediately available (for example, through preprint servers like bioRxiv) ahead of journal peer review. Among other benefits, open peer review may improve the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of research, and it may prevent or mitigate biases, including animal methods bias. Improving academic publishing and the peer review process is a hotly contested issue, though. The effect of open review on animal methods bias has not yet been investigated or demonstrated, and it may introduce other biases, such as racial, gender, or seniority biases. These are all important factors when considering where to submit.

Want us to add a journal? Use our Contact link below to send us a message!

Back to the Author Guide