Improving bioscience research reporting: ARRIVE-ing at a solution

In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously. The emergence of open access journals has further revolutionized the publication process, maximizing the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that, across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that, in many cases, even if the science is sound the publications themselves are not ‘fit for purpose’. ¹

Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of ‘quality control’ for the publication process. The way that research is reported in terms of the level of detail and accuracy is crucial to this process, and to the utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform subsequent studies and experiments. There is, therefore, an onus on the research community to ensure that all relevant information is available for critique. Failure to describe experiments and report results appropriately has potential scientific, ethical and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science.

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK government sponsored scientific organization, has carried out the largest and most comprehensive study of the reporting of animal research undertaken to date. ² The survey highlighted serious omissions in the reporting process. These findings indicate cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of other areas, including clinical research, published in recent years.

Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why and how, and to assess the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated. Evidence provided by reviews of published bioscience research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. However, most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on how to report research using animals. Several organizations, including the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics, support the case for improved reporting and recommend the use of reporting guidelines. ^3–6

To address this, the NC3Rs has led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines (see the online Supplementary material at http://la.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/la.2010.0010021/DC1), referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT statement for reporting clinical research as their foundation. ^7,8 The NC3Rs has worked with the wider scientific community, including researchers from a range of disciplines, journal editors (including Nature Cell Biology and Science) and funding bodies (including the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust) to ensure their usability. The guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include; the principles inherent in the guidelines apply to any area of bioscience research. Improved reporting of methodological and analytical details will maximize the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future.

The guidelines are not intended to be absolutely prescriptive, or to standardize the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency. The intention is to maximize the output from research using animals by optimizing the information that is provided on the design, conduct and analysis of experiments.

Achieving improved reporting of research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers and funding bodies, and there is no single simple or rapid solution. However the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The NC3Rs is working with journal editors to achieve endorsement for the guidelines and incorporation into journal instructions to authors, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines widely to promote adoption.