Animal-welfare section in papers would be a burden

Ethical policies on animal experiments are not compromised by whether a journal is freely accessible or charges for publication

The advent of the open access (OA) movement in publishing has been instrumental in causing a shift in the accessibility of research findings published in academic journals. The adoption of OA and other online publication models means that the results of scientific research published in journals using a free access (FA) framework are now available, free of charge, to anyone with access to the Internet. FA journals typically require a payment from the authors of a manuscript, which has raised concerns about the quality of work published in them; accepting payment from an author may compromise a journal's acceptance criteria. This study addresses whether journal policy on the treatment of animals is influenced by whether a journal follows a FA publishing model, and whether a requirement to pay for publication has an influence. A random sample of 332 biomedical journals listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Directory of Open Access Journals databases were assessed for whether they had an ethical policy on publishing animal studies, and what form of publication framework they used (103 of the journals followed a FA framework; 101 charged in some way for publication). Only 135 (40.7%) of the journals surveyed demanded that submissions comply with a pre-defined ethical stance. FA journals are just as likely to have an ethical policy on the treatment and presentation of animal studies as 'traditional', non-FA journals (significance of there being a difference: P = 0.98), and there is no relationship between policy and whether an author is required to pay for publication (significance of there being a difference: P = 0.57). Older journals are more likely to have an ethical policy (P = 0.03). There is, therefore, no obvious compromise shown by FA journals in the explicit policies on reporting studies involving animals. However, since anyone can read published FA studies online, FA journals that do not have an explicit policy about publishing animal research are urged to consider adopting one.

Reporting the Implementation of the Three Rs in European Primate and Mouse Research Papers: Are We Making Progress?

It is now more than 20 years since both Council of Europe Convention ETS123 and EU Directive 86/609?EEC were introduced, to promote the implementation of the Three Rs in animal experimentation and to provide guidance on animal housing and care. It might therefore be expected that reports of the implementation of the Three Rs in animal research papers would have increased during this period. In order to test this hypothesis, a literature survey of animal-based research was conducted. A randomly-selected sample from 16 high-profile medical journals, of original research papers arising from European institutions that featured experiments which involved either mice or primates, were identified for the years 1986 and 2006 (Total sample = 250 papers). Each paper was scored out of 10 for the incidence of reporting on the implementation of Three Rs-related factors corresponding to Replacement (justification of non-use of non-animal methods), Reduction (statistical analysis of the number of animals needed) and Refinement (housing aspects, i.e. increased cage size, social housing, enrichment of cage environment and food; and procedural aspects, i.e. the use of anaesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, and training for procedures with positive reinforcement). There was no significant increase in overall reporting score over time, for either mouse or primate research. By 2006, mouse research papers scored an average of 0 out of a possible 10, and primate research papers scored an average of 1.5. This review provides systematic evidence that animal research is still not properly reported, and supports the call within the scientific community for action to be taken by journals to update their policies.