Cited by 733Animal testing and alternativesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research

Open access
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W.J., Cuthill, I.C., Emerson, M., Altman, D.G.·2012·Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Abstract

In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice1–21.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.010

Cites

60 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ARRIVE guidelines were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research.

    “The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research.”

    From The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

    The section on improving the reporting of animal experiments says ARRIVE was developed to improve reporting and describes a draft agreed at a working-group meeting in June 2009. The References list ARRIVE guideline publications from 2010, but the paper does not establish that the guidelines were originally developed in 2010 rather than first drafted in 2009. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Macleod M. What can systematic review and meta-analysis tell us about the experimental data supporting stroke drug development? Int J Neuroprot Neuroregener 2005;1:201.
  2. Council of Science Editors e Editorial Policy Committee (2008e2009) CSE's White Paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2009 Update. Available: http:// www. councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/ entire_whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2010.
  3. Committee on publication ethics (COPE). COPE best practice guidelines for journal editors. Available: http://publi cationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2010.
  4. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: The Ethics of Research involving Animals (2005) Chapter 15: Discussion and Recommendations; pp 313, paragraph 15.58. Available: http://www. nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/RIA_Report_FINAL-opt.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2010.
  5. Hooijmans C, Leenars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Improving the quality of publications on animal experiments to make systematic reviews possible. ALTEX 2009;26:262.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Kilkenny, C.
Venue
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
256-260
ISSN
1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121190453
Cited by
728
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 95 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 8
FWCI
27.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Royal Society
  • Parkinson's UK
  • Imperial College London
  • National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Medical Research Council
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
ARRIVE guidelines, animal research reporting, reporting quality, open access journals, biomedical research, reporting guidelines, reproducibility
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Quality Control, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Animal Experimentation, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review