IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1001757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan A Eisen
  • Emma Ganley
  • Catriona J MacCallum

Abstract

: If being open means maximizing the number of people a paper can reach and minimizing the difficulties of re-using the information within it, then the release of all information associated with a paper is critical. For ethical reasons, high standards of reporting are extra critical in regards to animal research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan A Eisen & Emma Ganley & Catriona J MacCallum, 2014. "Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001757
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    3. H Bart van der Worp & David W Howells & Emily S Sena & Michelle J Porritt & Sarah Rewell & Victoria O'Collins & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    4. Story C. Landis & Susan G. Amara & Khusru Asadullah & Chris P. Austin & Robi Blumenstein & Eileen W. Bradley & Ronald G. Crystal & Robert B. Darnell & Robert J. Ferrante & Howard Fillit & Robert Finke, 2012. "A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 187-191, October.
    5. Carol Kilkenny & Nick Parsons & Ed Kadyszewski & Michael F W Festing & Innes C Cuthill & Derek Fry & Jane Hutton & Douglas G Altman, 2009. "Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-11, November.
    6. Emily S Sena & H Bart van der Worp & Philip M W Bath & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    7. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    8. Cameron Neylon, 2013. "Architecting the Future of Research Communication: Building the Models and Analytics for an Open Access Future," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-5, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Malcolm R Macleod & Aaron Lawson McLean & Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou & Stylianos Serghiou & Arno de Wilde & Nicki Sherratt & Theo Hirst & Rachel Hemblade & Zsanett Bahor & Cristina Nunes-Fonseca & Aparn, 2015. "Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Jonathan Kimmelman & Alex John London, 2011. "Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-5, March.
    4. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    5. Valerie C Henderson & Jonathan Kimmelman & Dean Fergusson & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Dan G Hackam, 2013. "Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Jason A Miranda & Phil Stanley & Katrina Gore & Jamie Turner & Rebecca Dias & Huw Rees, 2014. "A Preclinical Physiological Assay to Test Modulation of Knee Joint Pain in the Spinal Cord: Effects of Oxycodone and Naproxen," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-11, August.
    7. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    11. Lucile Vogt & Thomas S Reichlin & Christina Nathues & Hanno Würbel, 2016. "Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Jonathan Kimmelman & Jeffrey S Mogil & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2014. "Distinguishing between Exploratory and Confirmatory Preclinical Research Will Improve Translation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-4, May.
    13. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    14. Yali Liu & Xingxing Zhao & Yuefen Mai & Xinxin Li & Jin Wang & Lili Chen & Jing Mu & Gengxue Jin & Hongping Gou & Wanting Sun & Yuchen Feng, 2016. "Adherence to ARRIVE Guidelines in Chinese Journal Reports on Neoplasms in Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    15. Kimberley E Wever & Carlijn R Hooijmans & Niels P Riksen & Thomas B Sterenborg & Emily S Sena & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Michiel C Warlé, 2015. "Determinants of the Efficacy of Cardiac Ischemic Preconditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    16. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    17. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    18. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    19. Olivia Hogue & Tucker Harvey & Dena Crozier & Claire Sonneborn & Abagail Postle & Hunter Block-Beach & Eashwar Somasundaram & Francis J May & Monica Snyder Braun & Felicia L Pasadyn & Khandi King & Ca, 2022. "Statistical practice and transparent reporting in the neurosciences: Preclinical motor behavioral experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.