Towards minimum reporting standards for life scientists
Open accessAbstract
Transparency in reporting benefits scientific communication on many levels. While specific needs and expectations vary across fields, the effective use of research findings relies on the availability of core information about research materials, data, and analysis. In December 2017, a working group of journal editors and experts in reproducibility convened to create the “minimum standards” working group. This working group aims to devise a set of minimum expectations that journals could ask their authors to meet, and will draw from the collective experience of journals implementing a range of different approaches designed to enhance reporting and reproducibility (e.g. STAR Methods), existing life science checklists (e.g. the Nature Research reporting summary), and the results of recent meta-research studying the efficacy of such interventions (e.g. Macleod et al. 2017; Han et al. 2017).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
By providing a comprehensive set of recommendations specifically tailored to the description of in vivo research, ARRIVE 2.0 helps authors reporting animal experiments adhere to NIH standards and the MDAR minimum standards framework and checklist.
“By providing a comprehensive set of recommendations that are specifically tailored to the description of in vivo research, they help authors reporting animal experiments adhere to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) standards [43] and the minimum standards framework and checklist (Materials, Design, Analysis and Reporting [MDAR] [47]).”
From The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research (2020) · cites this paper as [47]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
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., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Cited by 5,939 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods
Menke, J., Roelandse, M., Ozyurt, B., Martone, M., & Bandrowski, A. (2020) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101698 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Macleod, M., Collings, A. M., Graf, C., Kiermer, V., Mellor, D., Swaminathan, S., Sweet, D., & Vinson, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2103238118 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chambers, K., Collings, A., Graf, C., Kiermer, V., Mellor, D. T., Macleod, M. R., Swaminathan, S., Sweet, D., & vinson, V.
- Affiliations
- Center for Open Science (US)
- ORCID
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2019-04-30
- OpenAlex
- W4237714498
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- minimum reporting standards, research transparency, reproducibility, STAR method, research checklist, meta-research, journal editorial policy
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
