Microsoft Word - corrected proofs Prof Van Noorden 24 apr.docx


 

 

Publication bias in laboratory animal 
research by non-publication of “negative” 

results   

    Cornelis J.F. Van Noorden 

   All Res. J. Biol., 2013, 4, 1 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The publication cost of this article might be covered by external sponsors. More info for 
sponsors at: sponsors@arjournals.com 

EDITORIAL 



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Issue 1, Vol 4, 2013, 1 

Editorial: Publication bias in laboratory animal research by non-
publication of “negative” results 
 

Cornelis J.F. Van Noorden 
 Department of Cell Biology and Histology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands.	
  E-mail: c.j.vannoorden@amc.uva.nl 
 

 

An interesting publication for the readership of The All 
Results Journal appeared recently, focused on 
publication bias in laboratory animal research. The 
article highlights the preference to publish results that 
show effects of treatment over publication of lack of 
effects of treatment. 1 The authors do not have hard 
evidence for the preference to publish effects rather 
than the lack of effects but show indirect evidence for 
this phenomenon by interviewing all known laboratory 
animal researchers in The Netherlands in an internet-
based survey. In the survey, a total of 454 researchers 
responded, which is 14-24% of the estimated number of 
laboratory animal researchers in The Netherlands. 
 
Researchers in for-profit organizations estimated that 
approximately 10% of all animal research is published, 
whereas researchers in non-for-profit organizations 
estimated that 80% was published. A major reason for 
non-publication was considered to be the lack of 
statistical significance between experimental animal 
groups. It is evident that such preference for publication 
of significantly-different or positive results creates 
publication bias. This bias, by non-publication of 
experiments that show lack of significant effects in 
treatment groups of laboratory animals, is unethical 
since it deprives researchers of the accurate data they 
need to estimate the potential of novel therapies in 
clinical trials, but also because the included animals are 
wasted as they do not contribute to accumulating 
knowledge. In addition, research that overstates effects 
may lead to further unnecessary animal experiments 
testing poorly founded hypotheses. 2 
 
The authors recommend a number of measures to be 
taken to prevent non-publication of negative results, 
such as control by the Institutional Animal Care and 
Use Committees or the submission of manuscripts for 
publication without any results as  suggested 
previously.3 Besides, The All Results Journals, The 
Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine as well as 
specific sections for negative results publications in the 
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 

Neurobiology of Aging and Gynaecological Oncology 
were explicitly mentioned to minimize this type of 
publication bias. 
 
As section editor of The All Results Journals:Biol, I am 
pleased with publications like Ter Riet et al.,1 of which 
I am a co-author, so I must warn the readership that I 
am not strictly objective. Nevertheless, I am allowed to 
point at the publication as a stimulus to publish 
laboratory animal research studies that did not produce 
any statistically significant differences between 
treatment groups when the studies are properly 
designed. The All Results Journals are an excellent 
medium for the publication of these studies besides 
reducing publication bias. 
 

References  
1. Ter Riet, G., Korevaar D.A., Leenaars, M., Sterk, P.J., Van 
Noorden, C.J.F., Bouter, L.M., Lutter, R., Oude Elferink, 
R.P., Hooft, L. (2012). Publication bias in laboratory animal 
research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and 
potential solutions. PLoS One 7, e43404. 

2. Sena, E.S., Van der Worp, H.B., Bath, P.M., Howells, 
D.W., Macleod, M.R. (2010). Publication bias in reports of 
animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of 
efficacy. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000343. 10.1371/journal.pbio. 

3. Greenland, S. (2007). Commentary: on ‘quality in 
epidemiological research: should we be submitting papers 
before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis 
generating research?’ Int. J. Epidemiol. 36, 944-945.  

1