TY - JOUR
KW - Animals
KW - Humans
KW - Publishing
KW - Research Design
KW - ethics
KW - nonanimal methods
KW - Translation
KW - Validation
AU - Catharine E. Krebs
AU - Celean Camp
AU - Helder Constantino
AU - Lilas Courtot
AU - Owen Kavanagh
AU - Sofia Batista Leite
AU - Judith Madden
AU - Alicia Paini
AU - Brinda Poojary
AU - Ignacio J. Tripodi
AU - Emily R. Trunnell
AB - Animal 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.
BT - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
DA - 2023-10-17
DO - 10.14573/altex.2210211
IS - 4
LA - eng
N2 - Animal 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.
PY - 2023
SP - 677
EP - 688
T2 - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
TI - Proceedings of a workshop to address animal methods bias in scientific publishing
VL - 40
SN - 1868-8551
ER -