A survey to evaluate animal methods bias experienced by India-based researchers in the peer review of manuscripts and grant applications

• 56% cent of respondents (n=39 out of 70) said they have been asked by manuscript reviewers to add animal experiments to their otherwise nonanimal-based studies • 57% (n=47 of 83 respondents) felt that the lack of animal experiments in their grant proposal negatively influenced its evaluation • Respondents reported complying to 24% of these requests on average – or 1 out of every 4 such requests • 22% of the respondents (n=16 out of 72) said that they have used animal-based methods solely because they expected editor or reviewer requests for them • In terms of incentives to use animal-based methods, primarily, respondents indicated that they used animal-based methods to validate the in vitro findings (31%) or mimic biological complexity (26%) While peer review during manuscript or grant application forms the cornerstone of scientific evaluation and assessment, this process is also prone to biases and confounding. Animal methods bias is a specific form of peer review bias where a preference for animal-based research methods or a lack of expertise in nonanimal-based methods undermines the quality and fairness of assessments of nonanimal studies. In this study, we conducted a survey to assess the challenges and experiences of researchers in India to publish peer-reviewed publications and apply for grants based on projects using nonanimal methods. A cross-sectional survey with 19 questions was completed by 186 respondents working in various biological fields in India. Decision logic was used to route respondents through the survey, which led to varying number of responses per question. Fifty-six per cent of respondents (39 out of 70) said they have been asked by manuscript reviewers to add animal experiments to their otherwise nonanimal-based studies. Respondents reported complying to 24% of these requests on average. Respondents indicated the primary impacts of requests for additional experiments were publishing in lower impact factor journals and manuscript rejection. In addition, 57% (47 of 83 respondents) felt that the lack of animal experiments in their grant proposal negatively influenced its evaluation. Respondents were also asked about key factors influencing their use of animal and nonanimal methods, which revealed that some perceived animal methods as necessary to validate nonanimal methods and as more reliable for mimicking biological complexity, while others perceived nonanimal methods as more physiologically relevant and practically advantageous. This survey provides preliminary evidence of animal methods bias experiences during publishing and funding peer review faced by Indian researchers.