Promoting Fairness in the Review of Research Methods

Editors and publishers: We want your feedback!

We’re investigating ways to improve fairness in reviewing nonanimal biomedical research methods and are looking for your input. What interventions to mitigate bias have proven effective at your journal(s), and what might you be open to trying to counteract animal methods bias? Let us know what you think by emailing us or filling out this survey!

Animal Methods Bias

The preference for animal-based research methods or the lack of expertise to adequately evaluate nonanimal methods, such as complex in vitro models. Animal methods bias can cause reviewers to expect or request animal experiments, which authors often feel are not scientifically justified.

How it can happen

  • Peer reviewers lack the sufficient expertise in nonanimal methods needed to review their use fairly and adequately  
  • Peer reviewers may favor animal-based research because it is familiar or more often used and/or their own expertise is centered in the use of animals
  • Journals, publishers, and reviewers may lack awareness of animal methods bias
  • Some journals have explicit policies that submitted manuscripts should contain in vivo research
  • Some journals tend to primarily publish animal research, disincentivizing researchers from submitting animal-free studies
  • Editors may not recognize animal methods bias in manuscript reviews

What it can do

  • Causes authors to withdraw manuscripts when they encounter animal methods bias in reviews
  • Delays publication when authors are required to obtain funding for, plan and perform experiments on animals
  • Increases animal use and is counterproductive to 3Rs principles
  • Stifles innovation and delays the development, dissemination, and validation of nonanimal methods
  • Contributes to the documented poor translatability of findings from animal experiments to human clinical outcomes
  • Undermines the objective evaluation of research

What could help

  • Removing explicit requirements for in vivo validation experiments in journal author guidelines
  • Incorporating reviewer guidelines that describe best practices for evaluating in vitro studies, such as PRIVAT and RIVER
  • Offering registered report article types and requiring authors to follow experimental reporting standards  
  • Mandating that reviewer requests for addition of animal experiments be scrutinized by editors or other reviewers
  • Implementing bias mitigation training for editors and reviewers, or adding information about methods bias to existing training materials
  • Collecting additional evidence from peer review reports to demonstrate animal methods bias, or the lack thereof, in various research fields and for a variety of demographics
  • Exploring the development and implementation of other policies to discourage animal methods bias during manuscript review

Resources

  1. Krebs CE and Herrmann K. Confronting the bias towards animal experimentation (animal methods bias). Frontiers in Drug Discovery. 2024 (4). Reference
  2. Krebs C, Lam A, McCarthy J, Constantino H, Sullivan K. A survey to assess animal methods bias in scientific publishing. ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation. 2023. Reference
  3. Krebs C, Camp C, Constantino H, et al. Proceedings of a workshop to address animal methods bias in scientific publishing. ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation. 2022. Reference