解决科学出版中动物方法偏见的研讨会论文集。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-31 DOI:10.14573/altex.2210211
Catharine E Krebs, Celean Camp, Helder Constantino, Lilas Courtot, Owen Kavanagh, Sofia Batista Leite, Judith Madden, Alicia Paini, Brinda Poojary, Ignacio J Tripodi, Emily R Trunnell
{"title":"解决科学出版中动物方法偏见的研讨会论文集。","authors":"Catharine E Krebs,&nbsp;Celean Camp,&nbsp;Helder Constantino,&nbsp;Lilas Courtot,&nbsp;Owen Kavanagh,&nbsp;Sofia Batista Leite,&nbsp;Judith Madden,&nbsp;Alicia Paini,&nbsp;Brinda Poojary,&nbsp;Ignacio J Tripodi,&nbsp;Emily R Trunnell","doi":"10.14573/altex.2210211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Animal methods bias in scientific publishing is a newly defined type of publishing bias describing a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, which impacts the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. This article covers the output from a workshop between stakeholders in publishing, academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations. The intent of the workshop was to exchange perspectives on the prevalence, causes, and impact of animal methods bias in scientific publishing, as well as to explore mitigation strategies. Output from the workshop includes summaries of presentations, breakout group discussions, participant polling results, and a synthesis of recommendations for mitigation. Overall, participants felt that animal methods bias has a meaningful impact on scientific publishing, though more evidence is needed to demonstrate its prevalence. Significant consequences of this bias that were identified include the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures, the continued reliance on animals in research – even where suitable nonanimal methods exist, poor rates of clinical translation, delays in publication, and negative impacts on career trajectories in science. Workshop participants offered recommendations for journals, publishers, funders, governments, and other policy makers, as well as the scientific community at large, to reduce the prevalence and impacts of animal methods bias. The workshop resulted in the creation of working groups committed to addressing animal methods bias, and activities are ongoing.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":" ","pages":"677-688"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proceedings of a workshop to address animal methods bias in scientific publishing.\",\"authors\":\"Catharine E Krebs,&nbsp;Celean Camp,&nbsp;Helder Constantino,&nbsp;Lilas Courtot,&nbsp;Owen Kavanagh,&nbsp;Sofia Batista Leite,&nbsp;Judith Madden,&nbsp;Alicia Paini,&nbsp;Brinda Poojary,&nbsp;Ignacio J Tripodi,&nbsp;Emily R Trunnell\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2210211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Animal methods bias in scientific publishing is a newly defined type of publishing bias describing a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, which impacts the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. This article covers the output from a workshop between stakeholders in publishing, academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations. The intent of the workshop was to exchange perspectives on the prevalence, causes, and impact of animal methods bias in scientific publishing, as well as to explore mitigation strategies. Output from the workshop includes summaries of presentations, breakout group discussions, participant polling results, and a synthesis of recommendations for mitigation. Overall, participants felt that animal methods bias has a meaningful impact on scientific publishing, though more evidence is needed to demonstrate its prevalence. Significant consequences of this bias that were identified include the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures, the continued reliance on animals in research – even where suitable nonanimal methods exist, poor rates of clinical translation, delays in publication, and negative impacts on career trajectories in science. Workshop participants offered recommendations for journals, publishers, funders, governments, and other policy makers, as well as the scientific community at large, to reduce the prevalence and impacts of animal methods bias. The workshop resulted in the creation of working groups committed to addressing animal methods bias, and activities are ongoing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"677-688\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2210211\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2210211","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

科学出版中的动物方法偏见是一种新定义的出版偏见,描述了在可能不必要或非动物方法可能已经合适的情况下,对基于动物的方法的偏好,这会影响手稿被接受出版的可能性或及时性。本文介绍了出版、学术界、工业界、政府和非政府组织的利益相关者之间的研讨会的成果。研讨会的目的是就科学出版中动物方法偏见的普遍性、原因和影响交换看法,并探讨缓解策略。研讨会的成果包括专题介绍摘要、分组讨论、参与者投票结果以及缓解建议的综合。总体而言,参与者认为动物方法偏见对科学出版有着重要影响,尽管还需要更多的证据来证明其普遍性。这种偏见的重大后果包括在科学程序中不必要地使用动物,在研究中继续依赖动物——即使存在合适的非动物方法,临床翻译率低,出版延迟,以及对科学职业轨迹的负面影响。研讨会参与者为期刊、出版商、资助者、政府和其他政策制定者以及整个科学界提供了建议,以减少动物方法偏见的普遍性和影响。研讨会成立了致力于解决动物方法偏见的工作组,活动正在进行中。
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
Proceedings of a workshop to address animal methods bias in scientific publishing.

Animal methods bias in scientific publishing is a newly defined type of publishing bias describing a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, which impacts the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. This article covers the output from a workshop between stakeholders in publishing, academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations. The intent of the workshop was to exchange perspectives on the prevalence, causes, and impact of animal methods bias in scientific publishing, as well as to explore mitigation strategies. Output from the workshop includes summaries of presentations, breakout group discussions, participant polling results, and a synthesis of recommendations for mitigation. Overall, participants felt that animal methods bias has a meaningful impact on scientific publishing, though more evidence is needed to demonstrate its prevalence. Significant consequences of this bias that were identified include the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures, the continued reliance on animals in research – even where suitable nonanimal methods exist, poor rates of clinical translation, delays in publication, and negative impacts on career trajectories in science. Workshop participants offered recommendations for journals, publishers, funders, governments, and other policy makers, as well as the scientific community at large, to reduce the prevalence and impacts of animal methods bias. The workshop resulted in the creation of working groups committed to addressing animal methods bias, and activities are ongoing.

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
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
期刊最新文献
Determining a point of departure for skin sensitization potency and quantitative risk assessment of fragrance ingredients using the GARDskin dose-response assay. Biology-inspired dynamic microphysiological system approaches to revolutionize basic research, healthcare and animal welfare. AOPs to connect food additives' effects on gut microbiota to health outcomes. Mapping out strategies to further develop human-relevant, new approach methodology (NAM)-based developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing. Predicting acute oral toxicity using AcutoX: An animal product-free and metabolically relevant human cell-based test.
×
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