02566nas a2200361   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653001200058653001100070653001500081653002000096653001100116653002200127653001600149653001500165100002300180700001600203700002300219700001800242700001800260700002400278700001800302700001700320700001900337700002300356700002200379245008600401300001200487490000700499520168400506022001402190       2023                            d  c2023-10-1710aAnimals10aHumans10aPublishing10aResearch Design10aethics10anonanimal methods10aTranslation10aValidation1 aCatharine E. Krebs1 aCelean Camp1 aHelder Constantino1 aLilas Courtot1 aOwen Kavanagh1 aSofia Batista Leite1 aJudith Madden1 aAlicia Paini1 aBrinda Poojary1 aIgnacio J. Tripodi1 aEmily R. Trunnell00aProceedings of a workshop to address animal methods bias in scientific publishing  a677-6880 v403 aAnimal methods bias in scientific publishing is a newly defined type of publishing bias describing a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, which impacts the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. This article covers the output from a workshop between stakeholders in publishing, academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations. The intent of the workshop was to exchange perspectives on the prevalence, causes, and impact of animal methods bias in scientific publishing, as well as to explore mitigation strategies. Output from the workshop includes summaries of presentations, breakout group discussions, participant polling results, and a synthesis of recommendations for mitigation. Overall, participants felt that animal methods bias has a meaningful impact on scientific publishing, though more evidence is needed to demonstrate its prevalence. Significant consequences of this bias that were identified include the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures, the continued reliance on animals in research – even where suitable nonanimal methods exist, poor rates of clinical translation, delays in publication, and negative impacts on career trajectories in science. Workshop participants offered recommendations for journals, publishers, funders, governments, and other policy makers, as well as the scientific community at large, to reduce the prevalence and impacts of animal methods bias. The workshop resulted in the creation of working groups committed to addressing animal methods bias, and activities are ongoing.  a1868-8551