Cited by 86Animal testing and alternativesPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAnimal Law and Welfare

Journal Editorial Policies, Animal Welfare, and the 3Rs

Osborne, Nicola J., Payne, Daisy, Newman, Michael L.·2009·The American Journal of Bioethics

Abstract

This study evaluates the editorial policies of a randomized sample of English language peer-reviewed journals that publish original research involving the use of animals. The aim is to identify whether journals have editorial policies relating to the use of animals in the research that they are prepared to publish and whether any policies are likely to promote animal welfare and dissemination of information on the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) within the scientific community. The results demonstrate that a significant proportion of journals publishing original research involving animals do not have any editorial policy relating to the use of animals. Of those journals that do have policies the majority simply request that the research be carried out in accordance with standard regulatory requirements. This paper aims to provide editors and publishers with the information they need to review their own editorial policies to ensure they are fulfilling their potential to promote animal welfare and dissemination of the 3Rs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15265160903318343

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 revised guidelines are in line with many journals' policies and will assist authors in complying with information requirements on the ethical review of the research, data presentation and access, statistical methods, and conflicts of interest.

    “The revised guidelines are also in line with many journals’ policies and will assist authors in complying with information requirements on the ethical review of the research [48, 49], data presentation and access [50–52], statistical methods [51, 52], and conflicts of interest [53, 54].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 19 · Cited by 86

Authors
Osborne, N. J., Payne, D., & Newman, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia (AU)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Bioethics
Published
2009-12-14
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
55-59
ISSN
  • 1526-5161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-0075
OpenAlex
W1985432281
Cited by
86
References
19
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 8
FWCI
15.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
editorial policy, animal welfare, 3Rs, animal studies, peer-reviewed journals, research ethics, scholarly publishing, regulatory compliance
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Welfare, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Peer Review, Research, Animal Experimentation, Ethics, Research, Editorial Policies

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