Gathering Evidence

The Evidence Working Group of the COLAAB aims to characterize animal methods bias in different research assessment contexts and identify its causes and impacts.

A survey to assess animal methods bias in scientific publishing

In 2023, the COLAAB published the first ever empirical evidence of animal methods bias, results from a survey of researchers about their experiences and perceptions related to animal- and nonanimal-based experiments during the peer review of their manuscripts for publication. The cross-section survey with 33 questions was completed by 90 respondents working in various biological fields. After exclusion criteria, data from 68 researchers was analyzed. Twenty-one survey respondents indicated that they have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests. Thirty-one survey respondents indicated that they have been asked by peer reviewers to add animal experimental data to their nonanimal study; 14 of these felt the request was sometimes justified, and 11 did not think it was justified.

 

Respondents have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests

Evidence figure 1

Respondents have been asked by peer reviewers to add animal experimental data to their nonanimal study

Evidence figure 2

When asked to elaborate, here are some of the things respondents said:

“The study was about heterogeneity of cancer cells from human tissue samples. It was irrelevant to do an experiment on mice.”

 

“Referees ask for animal experiments because it is customary, not because it is necessary. Many are unaware about the potential of in vitro and in silico methods.”

 

“The journals that wanted animal experiments were journals with higher impact factors… There is no incentive to not do animal experiments.”

 

“In my experience, reviewers on grant panels are even more likely to ask for animal experiments than manuscript reviewers.”

Ongoing Projects

The Evidence Working Group has conducted a follow-up survey with a larger sample, as well as bibliometric analyses to corroborate self-reported findings, and is preparing these results for publication. In addition, the group is conducting regional surveys to assess the characteristics of animal methods bias in different countries around the world with varying biomedical infrastructures and animal research laws and regulations.