Abstract
Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?
Highlights
Poor reporting has at least four serious, interconnected consequences (e.g., [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11])
The first is increasing evidence that experimental pre-clinical work purportedly demonstrating the impact of a particular drug or intervention on an animal model fails in translation [12,13]: follow-up clinical work in humans shows either no effect, for example, or that there are side effects that were never detected in the animal model
Poor reporting leads to publication bias: the pressure to publish only positive results means that negative studies are not reported or there is a bias to include selective analyses that report significant effects [3,6,8]
Summary
Poor reporting has at least four serious, interconnected consequences (e.g., [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]). Poor reporting leads to publication bias: the pressure to publish only positive results means that negative studies are not reported or there is a bias to include selective analyses that report significant effects [3,6,8]. While we can most see the consequences for pre-clinical experimental work on animals, the principle applies to any type of study or hypothesis tested.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
