Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias

Exciting news! 🥳 Under the leadership of Editor-in-Chief, Michael Coleman, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology just updated its Aims and Scope to be more supportive of NAMs submissions—and hopefully help prevent #AnimalMethodsBias. 🔗 www.sciencedirect.com/journal/envi... #PeerReview

For the past 2️⃣ years, we've engaged with editors as a part of our work to mitigate animal methods bias—identifying impactful, cost-effective actions journals could take & promoting editor interventions to prevent reviewer requests for animal experiments: www.animalmethodsbias.org/projects/edi...

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

Authors should carefully justify model choice, corroborate their findings with multiple lines of animal-free investigation, and not overstate conclusions. Some researchers may find our Author Guide to be helpful! www.animalmethodsbias.org/author-guide

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

Rather, we offer the following recommendations: Institutions should de-emphasize impact factor and other journal-based metrics in research assessments. @dorassessment.bsky.social —of which we are proud signatories—has great resources on this!

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

In the discussion, we situate animal methods bias among peer review bias more broadly: "we can consider animal methods bias to be caused by an error in assessing a study’s 'true quality,' where the technical details and methodological advantages of nonanimal approaches are underappreciated."

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

Our preprint matching analysis found few positive hits of final publications with animal experiments that weren’t present in preprints. Without information about motives for adding those experiments, the examples we did find were imprecise proxies for our target.

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

📄 We identified 17 studies where an animal experiment was introduced after the first preprint version was posted. ⬆️ 15 of 17 were published in journals with high impact factors (> 5). 🕒 15 of 17 had a long time to publication (> 300 days); Six of which were significantly long (p < 0.05).

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

A comparison of 3,159 animal-based publications and corresponding preprints: To further corroborate self-reported findings, we found examples where an animal experiment was introduced after original study completion, possibly in response to reviewer comments or journal rejections.

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

Studies using animals were published in journals with higher impact factors than in vitro studies. This finding confirmed reports that animal methods bias causes authors to publish in ⬇️ impact factor journals and that animal experiments are perceived to be necessary for top tier publications.

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

18% have performed animal experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests. This continues to be one of the most surprising findings. Reviewer expectations or requests do not justify animal use!

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

46% felt their nonanimal studies received unfair reviews due to absence of animals. We asked this question to more explicitly assess experiences of bias (not all requests for animal experiments = bias).

🚨 JUST PUBLISHED! Our biggest study yet demonstrating peer reviewer bias favoring animal-based methods was just, published in Research Evaluation. The paper takes you through three analyses 👇 #peerreview #reviewerbias #animalmethodsbias

Reforms to NIH peer review should make the process more transparent and accountable, not less. The COLAAB recently responded to a Request for Information from NIH on proposed changes to how the agency reports #PeerReview outcomes.

We recommended that #NIH: 🔹 Train anyone reviewing reports or summaries to recognize animal methods bias. 🔹 Track reviewer feedback and funding outcomes for animal vs. human-based projects & publicly release this aggregated information. 🔹 Maintain access to impact scores for meta-research.

Reforms to NIH peer review should make the process more transparent and accountable, not less. The COLAAB recently responded to a Request for Information from NIH on proposed changes to how the agency reports #PeerReview outcomes.

De-emphasizing metrics may also allow funding decisions to better reflect a proposal’s content, focusing on important qualitative factors such as scientific merit, human relevance, and potential to improve human health.

Reforms to NIH peer review should make the process more transparent and accountable, not less. The COLAAB recently responded to a Request for Information from NIH on proposed changes to how the agency reports #PeerReview outcomes.

Exciting news! 🥳 We're delighted to share that COLAAB members @ertrunnell.bsky.social and Catharine E. Krebs have published a new textbook chapter on animal methods bias. www.sciencedirect.com/science/chap...

It also offers practical recommendations for mitigating animal methods bias in publishing, funding, and institutional decision-making. We're excited to see animal methods bias recognized as an important topic in a major reference work on nonanimal approaches!

Exciting news! 🥳 We're delighted to share that COLAAB members @ertrunnell.bsky.social and Catharine E. Krebs have published a new textbook chapter on animal methods bias. www.sciencedirect.com/science/chap...

Have you ever had a peer review go poorly because you didn’t include animal experiments? Even the organ chip pioneer himself has. Despite the increasing momentum of nonanimal approaches, animal use is still deeply engrained—in regulatory guidance, in funding strategies, and in scientific culture.

We founded the COLAAB to build empirical evidence of the issue and bias mitigation campaigns, ultimately aimed at removing barriers to the broader adoption of powerful, animal-free technologies. Learn more about our work at AnimalMethodsBias.org.

Have you ever had a peer review go poorly because you didn’t include animal experiments? Even the organ chip pioneer himself has. Despite the increasing momentum of nonanimal approaches, animal use is still deeply engrained—in regulatory guidance, in funding strategies, and in scientific culture.

Speaking with @brandonkeim.bsky.social, Dr. Don Ingber, director of the @wyssinstitute.bsky.social & co-founder of @emulatebio.bsky.social shares how more than 15 years ago, his team’s lung-on-a-chip paper was rejected until they included tests on mice.

📢 A welcome and important step! NIH is seeking experts in human-based science to review research proposals. This announcement reflects the COLAAB's consistent recommendation that the agency ensure grant reviewers have the methodological expertise needed to fairly assess nonanimal approaches. 🧪

As the NIH receives more human-based proposals, it must integrate more experts in human-based methods in the review process and ensure review panels aren’t stacked with animal experimentation expertise.

📢 A welcome and important step! NIH is seeking experts in human-based science to review research proposals. This announcement reflects the COLAAB's consistent recommendation that the agency ensure grant reviewers have the methodological expertise needed to fairly assess nonanimal approaches. 🧪