Animal researchers’ views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

For over a decade, the non-publication of negative results from preclinical studies has been identified as a significant concern in biomedical research. Such underreporting is considered a contributor to the reproducibility crisis in the field and has been recognized by significant journals such as <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i>. In response to the consistently high non-publication rates of preclinical animal research in Europe, a survey was conducted among the biomedical research community to gather their views on publishing negative results. Using the EUSurvey platform, over 200 researchers directly working with animals were surveyed. The study aimed to understand the frequency of negative results, the reasons behind their non-publication, and the perceived pros and cons of making such results public. Insights from the survey could guide steps toward promoting transparency in science, refining research methodologies, reducing animal usage in experiments and minimizing research waste.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Laboratory Animals
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772241271039
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Animal researchers’ views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

Carlos Óscar S. Sorzano, Daniel G. Hamilton, Eva Méndez
1 citations
Laboratory Animals
Animal testing and alternatives
0.64
article

Animal researchers’ views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

Carlos Óscar S. Sorzano, Daniel G. Hamilton, Eva Méndez
article en
1 citations

Abstract

For over a decade, the non-publication of negative results from preclinical studies has been identified as a significant concern in biomedical research. Such underreporting is considered a contributor to the reproducibility crisis in the field and has been recognized by significant journals such as <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i>. In response to the consistently high non-publication rates of preclinical animal research in Europe, a survey was conducted among the biomedical research community to gather their views on publishing negative results. Using the EUSurvey platform, over 200 researchers directly working with animals were surveyed. The study aimed to understand the frequency of negative results, the reasons behind their non-publication, and the perceived pros and cons of making such results public. Insights from the survey could guide steps toward promoting transparency in science, refining research methodologies, reducing animal usage in experiments and minimizing research waste.

Laboratory AnimalsVol. 59(2)
The University of Melbourne (AU), Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (ES), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Animal testing and alternatives
0.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.