Limits...
A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale.

Martins AR, Franco NH - Animals (Basel) (2015)

Bottom Line: For editorial policies to meaningfully impact attitudes and practice, they must not only be put into effect by editors and reviewers, but also be set to high standards.Results show a much greater focus of editorial policies on regulatory compliance than on other domains, suggesting a transfer of journals' responsibilities to scientists, institutions and regulators.Scores were not found to vary with journals' impact factor, country of origin or antiquity, but were, however, significantly higher for open access journals, which may be a result of their greater exposure and consequent higher public scrutiny.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre S/N, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal. up201101588@fc.up.pt.

ABSTRACT
Animal research is not only regulated by legislation but also by self-regulatory mechanisms within the scientific community, which include biomedical journals' policies on animal use. For editorial policies to meaningfully impact attitudes and practice, they must not only be put into effect by editors and reviewers, but also be set to high standards. We present a novel tool to classify journals' policies on animal use-the EXEMPLAR scale-as well as an analysis by this scale of 170 journals publishing studies on animal models of three human diseases: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Type-1 Diabetes and Tuberculosis. Results show a much greater focus of editorial policies on regulatory compliance than on other domains, suggesting a transfer of journals' responsibilities to scientists, institutions and regulators. Scores were not found to vary with journals' impact factor, country of origin or antiquity, but were, however, significantly higher for open access journals, which may be a result of their greater exposure and consequent higher public scrutiny.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Scores for Categories A, B, C and D, for each. Journals publishing in more than one of the selected fields (n = 18) not shown [n(ALS) = 76; n(T1D) = 27; n(TB) = 49)].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494415&req=5

animals-05-00315-f004: Scores for Categories A, B, C and D, for each. Journals publishing in more than one of the selected fields (n = 18) not shown [n(ALS) = 76; n(T1D) = 27; n(TB) = 49)].

Mentions: No significant differences were found between the scores of the three sub-samples analyzed, the same happening for score distribution (Figure 3B). Results are hence presented for all journals pooled (N = 170, after removing duplicate entries from journals publishing in more than one field), unless stated otherwise. Category A (“reporting of regulatory compliance”) registered the highest non-nil score of all categories (92%), with 5% of journals being awarded the top score of five points. As for Category B (“Quality of research and reporting of results”), 72% had a nil score. However, 18% of journals were awarded the top score for this category, virtually all of these for referring to the ARRIVE guidelines. As for Category C (Ethical treatment of animals) and Category D (Criteria for the exclusion of papers), 86% and 91% of journals scored zero points, respectively (Figure 4). Overall, only 18% (31/170) of journals scored eight points or higher, with the two top-scoring journals being published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), namely PLOS One, with a maximum score of 20 points, and PLOS Genetics, which scored 15 points (the two other PLOS journals in the sample scored five and 10 points).


A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale.

Martins AR, Franco NH - Animals (Basel) (2015)

Scores for Categories A, B, C and D, for each. Journals publishing in more than one of the selected fields (n = 18) not shown [n(ALS) = 76; n(T1D) = 27; n(TB) = 49)].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494415&req=5

animals-05-00315-f004: Scores for Categories A, B, C and D, for each. Journals publishing in more than one of the selected fields (n = 18) not shown [n(ALS) = 76; n(T1D) = 27; n(TB) = 49)].
Mentions: No significant differences were found between the scores of the three sub-samples analyzed, the same happening for score distribution (Figure 3B). Results are hence presented for all journals pooled (N = 170, after removing duplicate entries from journals publishing in more than one field), unless stated otherwise. Category A (“reporting of regulatory compliance”) registered the highest non-nil score of all categories (92%), with 5% of journals being awarded the top score of five points. As for Category B (“Quality of research and reporting of results”), 72% had a nil score. However, 18% of journals were awarded the top score for this category, virtually all of these for referring to the ARRIVE guidelines. As for Category C (Ethical treatment of animals) and Category D (Criteria for the exclusion of papers), 86% and 91% of journals scored zero points, respectively (Figure 4). Overall, only 18% (31/170) of journals scored eight points or higher, with the two top-scoring journals being published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), namely PLOS One, with a maximum score of 20 points, and PLOS Genetics, which scored 15 points (the two other PLOS journals in the sample scored five and 10 points).

Bottom Line: For editorial policies to meaningfully impact attitudes and practice, they must not only be put into effect by editors and reviewers, but also be set to high standards.Results show a much greater focus of editorial policies on regulatory compliance than on other domains, suggesting a transfer of journals' responsibilities to scientists, institutions and regulators.Scores were not found to vary with journals' impact factor, country of origin or antiquity, but were, however, significantly higher for open access journals, which may be a result of their greater exposure and consequent higher public scrutiny.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre S/N, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal. up201101588@fc.up.pt.

ABSTRACT
Animal research is not only regulated by legislation but also by self-regulatory mechanisms within the scientific community, which include biomedical journals' policies on animal use. For editorial policies to meaningfully impact attitudes and practice, they must not only be put into effect by editors and reviewers, but also be set to high standards. We present a novel tool to classify journals' policies on animal use-the EXEMPLAR scale-as well as an analysis by this scale of 170 journals publishing studies on animal models of three human diseases: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Type-1 Diabetes and Tuberculosis. Results show a much greater focus of editorial policies on regulatory compliance than on other domains, suggesting a transfer of journals' responsibilities to scientists, institutions and regulators. Scores were not found to vary with journals' impact factor, country of origin or antiquity, but were, however, significantly higher for open access journals, which may be a result of their greater exposure and consequent higher public scrutiny.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus