@thecolaab
The Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias is a global collaboration addressing the preference for animal-based research methods or the lack of expertise to adequately evaluate nonanimal methods. https://www.animalmethodsbias.org/
What’s your experience? Have you noticed a shift in review quality lately?
Read the paper by @carlbergstrom.com & Gross in @plosbiology.org
🔗 journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
(cont'd) For example, @elife.bsky.social publishes review reports and author responses and doesn’t employ the traditional accept-reject paradigm, which may put less pressure on authors to concede to unfair reviewer comments.
📚 Publishers: Alternative peer review models may be the way of the future. Bergstrom and Gross highlight open review platforms and models that take revise-and-resubmit off the table altogether. (cont'd)
(cont'd) Bergstrom & Gross note that editors can take some of the load off reviewers when evaluating revisions.
Editors can also ⬇️ burden on authors by letting them know their papers will be accepted without additional experiments suggested by reviewers.
www.animalmethodsbias.org/index.php/pr...
Here are 3️⃣ ways we can break the cycle:
👩🔬 Researchers: If you have NAMs expertise, it’s more important than ever to say ‘Yes’ to review opportunities.
✍ Editors: Empowerment is key. Editorial intervention can prevent unfair or low-quality reviews from derailing a manuscript’s trajectory. (cont'd)
How does this impact #AnimalMethodsBias?
When review labor is stretched thin, expertise gaps grow. But appropriate expertise is crucial to ensure that #NAMs studies receive high-quality reviews and that animal-based studies aren’t unfairly favored.
Finding qualified, willing reviewers is becoming increasingly difficult.
In this fresh analysis, @carlbergstrom.com & Kevin Gross describe an unsustainable cycle:
🔄 Manuscript submissions ⬆️
🔄 Review quality & accuracy ⬇️
🔄 Authors try their luck at reach journals, further flooding the system
The COLAAB is working to address this systemic issue so that researchers feel empowered to use nonanimal methods, and so that peer reviewers have the tools they need to judge a study based on its scientific merits, instead of outdated or biased assumptions.
Learn more at animalmethodsbias.org
We hear this often.
Innovative, animal‑free research gets slowed by expectations that animal data are required for a study to be considered “complete.”
This #AnimalMethodsBias shapes peer review, funding decisions, and publication.
It's a major barrier blocking the wider adoption of #NAMs.
“For years, it’s always been thought that animals should be the default,” Valerie Speirs told @dianakwon.bsky.social for @nature.com
🔗 www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Scientists are frustrated by slow progress & feel that papers & grant applications are still expected to include animal experiments.
This is exactly why we’re interested to learn whether experiences with animal methods bias may have outsized impacts on scientists from underrepresented groups.
Stay tuned for future research!
#ScientificPublishing #PublishorPerish #AcademicLife 🧪
Zimmer also cited a survey by @nsilbiger.bsky.social & Stubler showing that unprofessional reviewer comments can be especially demoralizing for women, non‑binary scientists, & people of color, harming confidence, productivity, & career progress.
In @peerj.bsky.social:
peerj.com/articles/8247/
So, what can authors do?
Zimmer highlights the following actions, which parallel the recommendations in our Author Guide, available here:
www.animalmethodsbias.org/author-guide
🎯 Choose the right journal
🔍 Focus on the science
📝 Write to the editor
☝️ Consider appealing rejections
In our recently published survey of India-based researchers, 21% of respondents indicated feeling demoralized or discouraged as a result of animal methods-biased reviews:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...)
In a larger (unpublished) global survey, 23% reported such feelings.
When a reviewer’s #AnimalMethodsBias colors their comments—by unfairly judging a paper for not using animals—it's not always unprofessional or mean. But it can be discouraging.
#PeerReview is meant to be critical, but sometimes it's unprofessional or outright mean. This can be a demoralizing experience for authors.
In @nature.com, Katarina Zimmer explored peer-review bullying and what authors can do to avoid and push back on it:
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
🧵 👇
In this hour-long presentation, Dr. Krebs discusses everything we currently know about animal methods bias and covers the COLAAB's work to help mitigate it.
👉 You can find it at the top of our Webinar Recordings page here:
www.animalmethodsbias.org/resources/we...
Did you miss Dr. Catharine Krebs’ recent webinar about #AnimalMethodsBias? The recording is now online!
If you’ve been looking for a comprehensive overview of our work from the last four (‼️) years, this is it!
#PeerReview #Bias #PhDChat 🧪
📣 Instituting bias reporting mechanisms for PIs, reviewers, & staff to report anything that could affect the fairness of the review process
Want more?
Check out our webinar recording: How to Advocate for Fair Funding and Overcome Animal Methods Bias: www.animalmethodsbias.org/index.php/re...
🗣️ Informing reviewers and review staff about the value of human-based methods
🔎 Implementing proposal evaluation criteria to ensure that methods are assessed based on their suitability for the research question, context of use, translatability, and human relevance
⬇️
👥 Diversifying review groups to boost inclusion of #NAMs expertise—this can avoid potential reviewer preferences for animal-based methods and ensure that NAM-based proposals are adequately evaluated for rigor and model suitability
⬇️
Our comment detailed evidence of animal methods bias and suggested reforms to ensure it’s not a barrier to innovative human-based science, such as:
💡 Increasing awareness of animal methods bias through targeted training for grant reviewers and review staff
⬇️
Multiple U.S. agencies have now launched initiatives to advance human-based research approaches and reduce animal experimentation and testing. 🧪
A #PeerReview bias favoring animal use will hinder their success.
💭 Ideas about peer review reforms? We got ‘em!
OSTP recently sought input on evidence-based reforms that could improve funding allocation, peer review, & grant evaluation.
We used this opportunity to raise awareness about #AnimalMethodsBias & provide recommendations for mitigating it.
#SciPol
For government initiatives like these to be successful, and to help NAMs reach their full potential, barriers in peer review must be addressed.
By:
Kopew, Singer, Krebs ( @pcrm.org )
@ertrunnell.bsky.social, Vidaurre ( @peta.org )
Ritskes-Hoitinga ( @utrechtuniversity.bsky.social )
In it, we discuss:
⚖️ How #PeerReview bias can tilt the scales against #NAMs in grant & manuscript reviews.
🌎 How new US/UK initiatives may help reduce this bias (they’re a great start!).
🎯 What else is needed to address animal methods bias as the world moves away from animal experimentation
New publication! 📄 By now you’ve heard about the plans in the US and UK to reduce and replace animal experimentation.
Check out our short perspective on the ways they do or don’t address #AnimalMethodsBias 👉
www.frontiersin.org/journals/tox...
🧪 #SciPol
This webinar is part of the Animal-Free Workshop Series for Early-Career Researchers, hosted by @pcrm.org and @jhucaat.bsky.social.
🔗 Register here! 👉 us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...
Interested in how #PeerReview bias affects the adoption of #NAMs?
Join us next week for a webinar where COLAAB member Catharine Krebs, PhD will discuss the nature & impacts of #AnimalMethodsBias & share recommendations for mitigating its effects.
🗓️ Thurs Jan 22
⌚️ 10 am ET
#phdsky #phdchat 🧪
2025 was a banner year for the COLAAB! 🚀
From the pages of Nature to the halls of NIH, this year we turned awareness into action, leveling the playing field for researchers using nonanimal methods.
Check out our 2025 Wrapped! ⬇️
www.linkedin.com/pulse/colaab...