Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,036

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Open access
Percie du Sert, Nathalie, Hurst, Viki, Ahluwalia, Amrita, Alam, Sabina, Avey, Marc T., Baker, Monya, Browne, William J., Clark, Alejandra, Cuthill, Innes C., Dirnagl, Ulrich, Emerson, Michael, Garner, Paul, Holgate, Stephen T., Howells, David W., Karp, Natasha A., Lidster, Katie, MacCallum, Catriona J., Macleod, Malcolm, Petersen, Ole, Rawle, Frances, Reynolds, Penny, Rooney, Kieron, Sena, Emily S., Silberberg, Shai D., Steckler, Thomas, Würbel, Hanno·2019·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
DOI 10.1101/703181

Preprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines 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 2019. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise the items and split the guidelines into two sets, the ARRIVE Essential 10, which constitute 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 to verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document that 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.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/703181

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,036

Metadata

Authors
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., Garner, P., Holgate, S. T., Howells, D. W., Karp, N. A., Lidster, K., MacCallum, C. J., Macleod, M., Petersen, O., Rawle, F., Reynolds, P., Rooney, K., Sena, E. S., Silberberg, S. D., Steckler, T., & Würbel, H.
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2019-07-15
DOI
10.1101/703181
OpenAlex
W2958422128
Cited by
1,036
References
33
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.