Abstract
A low reproducibility of experimental cerebrovascular research and problems in the translation of findings from animal experiments to successful treatment strategies in humans have precipitated investigations into the quality of preclinical research. Overall, deficits in the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical research were found to be prevalent (Dirnagl, 2006; Dirnagl and Macleod, 2009; Fisher et al, 2009; Minnerup et al, 2010; Philip et al, 2009; Sena et al, 2007). In this issue, Vesterinen et al (2010) present a ‘Systematic survey of the design, statistical analysis, and reporting of studies published in the 2008 volume of the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism’. Not surprisingly, this systematic analysis reveals indicators for deficiencies in original articles published in the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. Although this is the first such analysis in a neuroscience journal, it is quite clear that the deficits exposed are not specific to the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, one of the leading journals in the cerebrovascular field. In fact, another systematic analysis (Kilkenny et al, 2009) focusing on published biomedical research using laboratory animals in general reported very similar results.
The Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism has been at the forefront of exposing and remedying quality issues in preclinical research. We were the first neuroscience journal to alert authors, reviewers, and editors to the problem (Dirnagl, 2006) and have since then suggested measures to improve the quality (e.g. Macleod et al, 2009, Schlattmann and Dirnagl, 2010a, 2010b). In 2010, the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism inaugurated a section for the publication of high-quality negative results. We are now moving one step further by publishing the ARRIVE statement for reporting experiments involving animals, and we now stipulate in our Guide to Authors that ‘all manuscripts reporting animal research must be prepared in accordance with the ARRIVE statement’ (http://bit.ly/bTcuEK).
The ARRIVE guidelines (initial publication: Kilkenny et al, 2010a, 2010b; reprinted in this issue (Kilkenny et al, 2010c)) are intended to improve reporting of research using animals, guide authors as to the essential information to be included in a manuscript, and promote reproducible, transparent, accurate, comprehensive, concise, logically ordered, well-written manuscripts. The guidelines are NOT intended to promote uniformity, stifle creativity, or encourage authors to adhere rigidly to all items in the checklist, but rather to assist scientists at an early stage to plan experiments that comply with known guidelines encompassing the fundamental requirements for quality research. The ARRIVE guidelines are not (only) a guide to writing up a paper—they are a guide to good laboratory practice.
JCBFM, together with the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, will continue to promote measures that improve quality and thus ultimately help overcome the ‘translational roadblock’ in our field. Please join our ongoing discussion on quality issues in experimental biomedicine on the JCBFM pages in Facebook (http://bit.ly/bQThlq); we are highly interested in your opinion.