We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available.
Further information can be found in our privacy policy.
Recent Comments
Very valuable work and worth highlighting. A couple thoughts:
I have seen several presentations on this very topic at the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science national meeting. I attend this meeting because I have an interest in animal welfare. However, I wonder how many investigators make up the audience at this meeting. It is primarily aimed at facility care staff/managers and veterinarians/vet techs. Is this topic presented at other meetings? For instance, since this study data consisted of vaccine research, will this be presented at vaccine/immunology conferences? Do you plan to review work in other fields and potentially present at other conferences? In general I don't think this message is getting to the right audience. Hopefully this publication is a step in the right direction.
Secondly, as a manuscript reviewer, the journal editors really need to take the ARRIVE guidelines into more consideration. I have reviewed for journals that at minimum encourage using the ARRIVE essential 10. Some have a statement asking the authors if they followed these guidelines. They check "yes", and yet I often point out several points related to the study design/statistics reporting that are in the essential 10, but not in the manuscripts. In my opinion, authors should be filling out a form, reporting which lines in their manuscripts fulfill the ARRIVE guidelines. I actually beta tested the 2.0 guidelines with a manuscript of mine and filled out a very inclusive table of where each point was located. It took a little time, but it made the manuscript more transparent.
I see. By the time you're at the ARRIVE guide stage, it's too late.
What are your thoughts of the PREPARE guide and having funding agencies require something similar? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0023677217724823
Section 4 seems like it could be helpful, although the wording is a bit vague at this point. I think it's a good starting point at least.
Very valuable work and worth highlighting. A couple thoughts:
I have seen several presentations on this very topic at the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science national meeting. I attend this meeting because I have an interest in animal welfare. However, I wonder how many investigators make up the audience at this meeting. It is primarily aimed at facility care staff/managers and veterinarians/vet techs. Is this topic presented at other meetings? For instance, since this study data consisted of vaccine research, will this be presented at vaccine/immunology conferences? Do you plan to review work in other fields and potentially present at other conferences? In general I don't think this message is getting to the right audience. Hopefully this publication is a step in the right direction.
Secondly, as a manuscript reviewer, the journal editors really need to take the ARRIVE guidelines into more consideration. I have reviewed for journals that at minimum encourage using the ARRIVE essential 10. Some have a statement asking the authors if they followed these guidelines. They check "yes", and yet I often point out several points related to the study design/statistics reporting that are in the essential 10, but not in the manuscripts. In my opinion, authors should be filling out a form, reporting which lines in their manuscripts fulfill the ARRIVE guidelines. I actually beta tested the 2.0 guidelines with a manuscript of mine and filled out a very inclusive table of where each point was located. It took a little time, but it made the manuscript more transparent.