ARRIVE指南发布12年后:动物研究尚未达到高标准。

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Laboratory Animals Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1177/00236772231181658
Junmin Song, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Jae Il Shin, John Pa Ioannidis
{"title":"ARRIVE指南发布12年后:动物研究尚未达到高标准。","authors":"Junmin Song, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Jae Il Shin, John Pa Ioannidis","doi":"10.1177/00236772231181658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":18013,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory Animals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards.\",\"authors\":\"Junmin Song, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Jae Il Shin, John Pa Ioannidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00236772231181658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231181658\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231181658","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动物研究的再现性危机危及动物研究的主要发现的可信度,尽管这些发现对人类研究至关重要。为了澄清和提高动物研究的透明度,ARRIVE报告指南于2010年首次公布,并于2020年升级至2.0版。然而,对这些报告准则的遵守和认识仍然不够理想。期刊编辑应该鼓励作者遵守这些准则。在评估和评估动物研究的方法和结果时,作者、编辑、推荐人和评审员应了解ARRIVE指南2.0。然而,我们也应该质疑单独的报告指南是否可以改变研究文化并提高动物研究的可重复性。报道的研究可能无法反映实际研究。由于设计选择不当,以及未发表而非次优报告,动物研究工作的大部分都被浪费了。对科学工作者进行更好的培训,在设计阶段采取干预措施改善动物研究,注册实践,以及将奖励制度与严格的动物研究的出版相结合,可能不仅仅是报告指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards.

The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Laboratory Animals
Laboratory Animals 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The international journal of laboratory animal science and welfare, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews on all aspects of the use of animals in biomedical research. The journal promotes improvements in the welfare or well-being of the animals used, it particularly focuses on research that reduces the number of animals used or which replaces animal models with in vitro alternatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信