Michael Emerson

[no abstract]

This FAIRsharing record describes: The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are intended to improve the reporting of research using animals - maximising information published and minimising unnecessary studies. The ARRIVE guidelines were developed in consultation with the scientific community as part of an NC3Rs initiative to improve the standard of reporting of research using animals. They are available in Chinese (Mandarin), French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese (including Brazilian Portuguese) and Spanish as well as the original English.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) 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 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes 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 verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which 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.

The NC3Rs gratefully acknowledges the expertise and advice that all the contributors have given to developing the guidelines. We would particularly like to acknowledge the contribution of the NC3Rs Reporting Guidelines Working Group-– Professor Doug Altman, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford UK, Professor David Balding, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, Imperial College, London UK, Professor William Browne, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol UK, Professor Innes Cuthill, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol UK, Dr Colin Dunn, Editor Laboratory Animals (Royal Society of Medicine press), Dr Michael Emerson, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London UK, Dr Stella Hurtley, Senior Editor Science, Professor Ian McGrath, Editor-in-Chief British Journal of Pharmacology (Wiley Blackwell Publishers) and Dr Clare Stanford, Department of Psychopharmacology, University College, London UK. We would also like to thank NC3Rs grant holders, the Medical Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Wellcome Trust, Parkinson's Disease Society, British Heart Foundation and their grant holders and funding committee members who provided feedback on the guidelines; and Kathryn Chapman and Vicky Robinson (both NC3Rs) for their help with the manuscript. -Please note: that the working group members who contributed to these guidelines were advising in their personal capacity and their input does not necessarily represent the policy of the organisations they are associated with. The reporting guidelines project was funded by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). These guidelines are excerpted (as permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution License [CCAL], with the knowledge and approval of PLoS Biology and the authors) from Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: ARRIVE guidelines. PLoS Biol 2010; 8(6): e1000412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412. These guidelines are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) 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 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes 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 verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which 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.