营养与饮食研究中的动物实验现状:100 种主要期刊的政策和新方法。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104
Maximilian Andreas Storz, Elizabeth Dean
{"title":"营养与饮食研究中的动物实验现状:100 种主要期刊的政策和新方法。","authors":"Maximilian Andreas Storz, Elizabeth Dean","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% (<i>n</i> = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% (<i>n</i> = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% (<i>n</i> = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including <i>in vitro</i>, <i>in chemico</i>, and <i>in silico</i> methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Status of animal experimentation in nutrition and dietetic research: Policies of 100 leading journals and new approach methodologies.\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Andreas Storz, Elizabeth Dean\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% (<i>n</i> = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% (<i>n</i> = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% (<i>n</i> = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including <i>in vitro</i>, <i>in chemico</i>, and <i>in silico</i> methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于动物研究存在不足之处,如动物到人类的知识转化、伦理考虑和成本效益,有人提出了新方法(NAMs)作为替代。以营养与饮食学领域为例,我们的目的是研究该领域主要期刊关于以人为基础的研究与传统的以动物为基础的研究的政策;并探索新兴的 NAMs,以提供动物实验的替代方法。我们从已建立的数据库(SCImago 期刊排名)中查阅了 2022 年营养与饮食学类的 100 种主要期刊。有 83 种期刊符合纳入标准。营养与营养学》从一系列已有资料中提取。9.6%(n = 8)的期刊声明不发表动物研究;4.8%(n = 4)的期刊认为动物研究是有条件的,而其余 85.5%(n = 71)的期刊发表动物研究是没有条件的。在各种来源中,发现了营养与膳食研究的共性,包括体外、化学和硅学方法;以及基于个体和人群的研究。在主要的营养/膳食期刊中,转向严格采用非动物方法的期刊相对较少。更多地关注日益广泛的非动物模型,不仅可以减少该领域对动物研究的需求,还可以提供与人类相关的更优结果。需要进行研究以确定其潜在的优越性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Status of animal experimentation in nutrition and dietetic research: Policies of 100 leading journals and new approach methodologies.

Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% (n = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% (n = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% (n = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including in vitro, in chemico, and in silico methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1