Abstract
ObjectivesPublication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public’s trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.MethodsThe researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.ResultsIn total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “not relevant” to 5 = “extremely relevant”), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were “Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities” (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), “Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)” (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and “Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results” (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).ConclusionWhile the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.
Highlights
Publication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting is a matter of concern to the scientific community [1,2,3]
Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%
According to a 5-point Likert scale, the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were “Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities”, “Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis”, and “Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that publish non-significant results”
Summary
Publication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting is a matter of concern to the scientific community [1,2,3]. Replacement refers to alternative methods that lead to the direct replacement of animals in experiments, Reduction aims at the minimization of the number of animals used in experiments and the term Refinement is used to describe experimental approaches that minimize pain, suffering and harm to experimental animals [4, 5]. Non-publication may lead to the repetition of animal experiments by other researchers and a higher number of animals in experiments than necessary. It wastes public funding because it leads to overlap in research endeavors and biases the literature toward desired outcomes (e.g., the efficacy of new drugs), hampering the public’s trust in scientific reliability [6,7,8]. That we did not directly inquire about further publications (“researcher-check”), reasons for not publishing, or incentives to publish
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.
