Research Reporting Guidelines

A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review

Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, …

Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor

Accumulating evidence indicates high risk of bias in preclinical animal research, questioning the scientific validity and reproducibility of published research findings. Systematic reviews found low rates of reporting of measures against risks of …

Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice

The Journal of Physiology and British Journal of Pharmacology jointly published an editorial series in 2011 to improve standards in statistical reporting and data analysis. It is not known whether reporting practices changed in response to the …

The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices

From January 2014, Psychological Science introduced new submission guidelines that encouraged the use of effect sizes, estimation, and meta-analysis (the “new statistics”), required extra detail of methods, and offered badges for use of open science …

Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies

A study by David Baker and colleagues reveals poor quality of reporting in pre-clinical animal research and a failure of journals to implement the ARRIVE guidelines. There is growing concern that poor experimental design and lack of transparent …