TY - JOUR
T1 - The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
T2 - Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
AU - Percie du Sert, Nathalie
AU - Hurst, Viki
AU - Ahluwalia, Amrita
AU - Alam, Sabina
AU - Avey, Marc T.
AU - Baker, Monya
AU - Browne, William J.
AU - Clark, Alejandra
AU - Cuthill, Innes C.
AU - Dirnagl, Ulrich
AU - Emerson, Michael
AU - Garner, Paul
AU - Holgate, Stephen T.
AU - Howells, David W.
AU - Karp, Natasha A.
AU - Lazic, Stanley E.
AU - Lidster, Katie
AU - MacCallum, Catriona J.
AU - Macleod, Malcolm
AU - Pearl, Esther J.
AU - Petersen, Ole H.
AU - Rawle, Frances
AU - Reynolds, Penny
AU - Rooney, Kieron
AU - Sena, Emily S.
AU - Silberberg, Shai D.
AU - Steckler, Thomas
AU - Würbel, Hanno
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2020 The Physiological Society
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
AB - Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087797306&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1113/EP088870
DO - 10.1113/EP088870
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 32666546
AN - SCOPUS:85087797306
SN - 0958-0670
VL - 105
SP - 1459
EP - 1466
JO - Experimental Physiology
JF - Experimental Physiology
IS - 9
ER -