TY - JOUR
KW - Checklist
KW - In Vitro Techniques
KW - Publishing
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Research Design
KW - alternatives to animal testing
KW - cell culture
KW - documentation
KW - in vitro
KW - scientific reporting
AU - Thomas Hartung
AU - Rob De Vries
AU - Sebastian Hoffmann
AU - Helena T. Hogberg
AU - Lena Smirnova
AU - Katya Tsaioun
AU - Paul Whaley
AU - Marcel Leist
AB - A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting - in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a "Wild West" or "anything goes" attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the "reproducibility crisis" discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as "big data" and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).
BT - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
DA - 2019
DO - 10.14573/altex.1812191
IS - 1
LA - eng
N2 - A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting - in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a "Wild West" or "anything goes" attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the "reproducibility crisis" discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as "big data" and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).
PY - 2019
SP - 3
EP - 17
T2 - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
TI - Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards
UR - https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/1229
VL - 36
SN - 1868-596X
ER -