Because animal methods bias can result in publication delays or even manuscript rejection, authors who use nonanimal modeling systems should take preventive steps to avoid these negative outcomes. The first step to counter animal methods bias is to anticipate its potential to occur. When preparing a manuscript for a nonanimal-based study, researchers should discuss the inadequacies of animal experimentation and the availability of suitable nonanimal method alternatives in the relevant field of research. These measures can proactively counter downstream reviewer bias.
Careful study design and diligent reporting can help avoid a significant amount of pushback from reviewers who prefer animal methods. It is crucial to provide detailed protocols and methods in a manuscript so that proper evaluation of the work can be performed. Word limits and journal formatting may hinder such writing, but there are tools and best practices to help optimize manuscript preparation. The advice below can help authors prepare manuscripts and may increase the chance of acceptance at a target journal. This advice has been created based on comments from reviewers and editors on how to avoid requests for additional data prior to publication.
Recommendations for Preparing Manuscripts for Nonanimal-Based Studies
Justifying Model Choice
Authors should explain why their experimental model of choice is suitable for the research question. In particular, the human biological relevance of the methods should be made clear. If the research area is dominated by in vivo animal methods, an exact and detailed explanation should be provided to outline why animals are not suitable for the given hypothesis and subsequent work.
Validating Findings
Robustness of the evidence presented is important for advancing a field forward and for reviewers to evaluate a study’s merit. The most persuasive evidence of a study’s robustness is the use of different or complementary methods that corroborate findings. In research fields where animals are routinely used, requests from peer reviewers to validate findings with animal data may be anticipated. To preempt such requests, authors may include a nonanimal experimental validation step in their original study design (see Experimental Resources). If such a validation step was not included, authors may bolster the validity of their findings in other ways, such as by corroborating their findings with other peer-reviewed research. These studies could be previous animal studies, but studies with human subjects or clinical data would provide even more powerful evidence and maximize the translatability of findings.
Ensuring Reproducibility
Authors must ensure that other researchers can replicate their study procedures and findings by being fully transparent and detailed with methodological procedures and data. This is especially important for studies that employ nonanimal methods as scientific confidence in these approaches is still being built. All details of the study design need to be provided. Guidelines for reporting on in vitro studies have been described elsewhere and provide valuable information for authors to improve the reproducibility and reliability of their results (for example). Details such as the number of replicates, blinding procedures, temperatures, times, reagents used, and many more are crucial for authors to include. Adherence to these guidelines may not be a requirement for a particular study, but their implementation can enhance a study’s quality and make the results more reliable and credible to the broader scientific community and to reviewers. Similarly, the open sharing of data is also important for study transparency and reproducibility and allows other researchers to build on findings. Some journals require authors to submit datasets to appropriate data repositories; regardless, we encourage authors to do so (see, for example, this Data Repository Guidance for more information).
Drawing Conclusions
Overselling findings and overstating facts can lead to flawed reproducibility and false claims. Conclusions must be drawn accurately from the data and evidence provided. New and exciting methods can tempt researchers to overstate the power of the method used and may draw criticism or even rejection from editors and reviewers. Overstating could also lead to requests for further validation experiments, especially validation in animals. Along the same lines, it is also important for authors to adequately address the limitations of their study, which can be framed as areas of future investigation.