Progress in scientific research is hindered when authors fail to perform proper quality controls in their work. This calls into question whether their results are meaningful, and makes it difficult or impossible for others to replicate or extend work based on the initial finding. Beginning with this editorial and over the next few months, I will announce new and simple requirements for authors that will give greater confidence to readers that their results are “real” based on unambiguous descriptions of their methodology. My first initiative involves the use of antibodies in research. When submitting original research articles or technical reports, authors will be required to fill in a table (Table 1) and to include some prose description about each antibody’s specificity and validation. Articles will be published withtheantibodytable includedinthetext,andwewillbegin consolidating this information into a searchable database as a resource for investigators seeking to find validated antibodies for their research. I have based my initiative on a similar one described in detail in The Journal of Comparative Neurology (1), and we refer our readers to their website: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN) 1096-9861/homepage/jcn_antibody_database.htm. It is critical that an antibody is specific to its target antigen (2). Characterization and validation can be done in the authors’ lab for untested antibodies, or can be based on prior published work on the same antibody. In some cases, the manufacturer’s information can be useful, but should be interpreted with caution. For example, citation of an article demonstrating a single band at the appropriate molecular weight on a Western blot, or RIA/enzyme immunoassay results, would be acceptable with adequate prose description of the result. Proper controls also need to be performed, such as preadsorption of the antibody with the original antigen, lack of labeling in tissue from knockout animals, comparisons of the distribution of antibody labeling to known mRNA distribution using in situ hybridization, or identical distribution patterns seen using two antibodies designed against different antigen sites or two antibodies made in two different species (2). Along with completion of this table, authors would need to provide 1 to 2 sentences describing characterization and controls. Although this initiative adds an extra step to the article submission process, such a quality control has considerable value to both authors and readers. It enables others to replicate the authors’ work, and it gives confidence in applying the same antibody to future work. It also ensures that key details are included. In efforts to save space, Methods sections have become increasingly truncated. By requiring authors to fill out a table and add a few descriptive sentences, this ensures that no critical omission occurs in the case of antibody use. Last month’s edition of Endocrinology included an article by Panjwani et al (3), further discussed in the News and Views article by Pyke and Knudsen (4), that underscored the importance of antibody validation. In that original research report (3), a series of commonly used antibodies to GLP-1R were tested comprehensively, and several did not hold up to scrutiny for sensitivity and specificity. These results challenge all previous research performed with these latter antibodies. I personally know of published papers that are questionable or even unbelievable because of the lack of proper validation of antibodies and the inability of others to replicate their work. Such articles do not serve the scientific community. I firmly believe that this new antibody initiative will ensure that only the highest quality research continues to be published in Endocrinology.