Scientific journals show little enforcement of animal research reporting guidelines

January 9, 2014 by Charli Scouller

New findings from Queen Mary University of London reveal experimental flaws and a lack of transparent reporting is compromising the quality of animal studies and their potential to translate into the clinic.

The research, published today in PLOS Biology, was based on a review of over 200 scientific papers reporting on animal studies in the field of neuroimmunology. All the journals who published the papers have endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines.

Published in 2010 by the UK's National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), the ARRIVE guidelines set out the minimum information required to maximise the results obtained from animal studies and avoid unnecessary animal use and are endorsed by , major funding bodies, learned societies and universities

Only 4% of top-tier journals were found to report the appropriate use of statistics in and fewer than one in 10 studies reported methods which avoid experimental bias, such as randomisation. The survey investigated the statistical methods used and the depth of reporting across ethical review, study design, details of the used and sample size estimation.

David Baker, Professor of Neuroimmonology at Queen Mary University of London, comments: "Our research indicates the credibility of animal research is being threatened by inappropriate study design and a severe lack of balanced reporting in animal research studies. Failing to report the fundamental basics can result in unusable and is ultimately a sad waste of animal life."

"It is clear from these findings that authors, reviewers and journal editors are failing to implement the ARRIVE guidelines and failing to report animal research adequately. This has negative effects on the potential of research to inform future scientific studies and translate into meaningful therapies for patients. Only by implementing these guidelines fully can journals ensure they publish research that meets these standards and lead to patient benefits."

Explore further: Social and psychological experiments 'a waste of money'?

Related Stories

Recommended for you

From a very old skeleton, new insights on ancient migrations

October 9, 2015

Three years ago, a group of researchers found a cave in Ethiopia with a secret: it held the 4,500-year-old remains of a man, with his head resting on a rock pillow, his hands folded under his face, and stone flake tools surrounding ...

Mexican site yields new details of sacrifice of Spaniards

October 9, 2015

It was one of the worst defeats in one of history's most dramatic conquests: Only a year after Hernan Cortes landed in Mexico, hundreds of people in a Spanish-led convey were captured, sacrificed and apparently eaten.

Ancient genome from Africa sequenced for the first time

October 8, 2015

The first ancient human genome from Africa to be sequenced has revealed that a wave of migration back into Africa from Western Eurasia around 3,000 years ago was up to twice as significant as previously thought, and affected ...

Who you gonna trust? How power affects our faith in others

October 6, 2015

One of the ongoing themes of the current presidential campaign is that Americans are becoming increasingly distrustful of those who walk the corridors of power – Exhibit A being the Republican presidential primary, in which ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.