The COLAAB developed this guide to help ensure the fair dissemination of animal-free research and to prevent unnecessary experiments on animals. It is intended to be used by authors who use nonanimal methods and may help prevent and address animal methods bias from manuscript reviewers.
Within scientific publishing, peer review is intended to serve as a mechanism by which manuscripts can be assessed and improved to assure the rigor of published research. However, the system also introduces biases which can affect the likelihood of a manuscript’s publication, result in the undertaking of additional experiments, or alter the authors’ communication of their findings to readers. Preliminary evidence gathered by the COLAAB indicates that some researchers perform animal-based experiments solely in anticipation of reviewer requests for them, and reviewers sometimes ask authors to add animal experimental data to studies that otherwise had no animal-based component—a request that authors often feel is scientifically or ethically unjustified. Animal methods bias not only has ethical, time, and cost implications, but it may also contribute to the poor translatability of findings from animal experiments to human clinical outcomes. It can also have career consequences for researchers who use nonanimal methods, causing delays in publication, forcing authors to publish in lower-impact journals, or leading early-stage researchers to pursue animal methods because of the impression that they must do so in order to publish and progress their careers. It is therefore important for researchers who use nonanimal methods to understand how to avoid reviewer animal methods bias and address it if necessary.
The Author Guide is intended for life sciences and biomedical researchers who use nonanimal, human-specific in vitro or in silico methods. It contains information that researchers may use when designing their studies, when preparing and submitting manuscripts, and during the peer review process. While these resources are intended primarily for authors to address animal methods bias in publishing, they may also be useful for researchers facing animal methods bias in other contexts, such as applying for grants or preparing doctoral dissertations, or for editors and reviewers, although interventions that are more tailored to their responsibilities will likely be more effective. This guide is regularly updated by members of the COLAAB. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions regarding the guide, please contact us.