Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal article

Published

Standard

Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. / Hartung, Thomas; de Vries, Rob ; Hoffmann, Sebastian et al.
In: ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, Vol. 36, No. 1, 08.01.2019, p. 3-17.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal article

Harvard

Hartung, T, de Vries, R, Hoffmann, S, Hogberg, HT, Smirnova, L, Tsaioun, K, Whaley, PA & Leist, M 2019, 'Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards', ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3-17. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1812191

APA

Hartung, T., de Vries, R., Hoffmann, S., Hogberg, H. T., Smirnova, L., Tsaioun, K., Whaley, P. A., & Leist, M. (2019). Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 36(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1812191

Vancouver

Hartung T, de Vries R, Hoffmann S, Hogberg HT, Smirnova L, Tsaioun K et al. Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation. 2019 Jan 8;36(1):3-17. doi: 10.14573/altex.1812191

Author

Hartung, Thomas ; de Vries, Rob ; Hoffmann, Sebastian et al. / Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. In: ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation. 2019 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 3-17.

Bibtex

@article{fe2404342e7642828e5bde6484bc2e75,
title = "Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards",
abstract = "A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting – in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a “Wild West” or “anything goes” attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the “reproducibility crisis” discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as “big data” and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).",
author = "Thomas Hartung and {de Vries}, Rob and Sebastian Hoffmann and Hogberg, {Helena T.} and Lena Smirnova and Katya Tsaioun and Whaley, {Paul Alexander} and Marcel Leist",
year = "2019",
month = jan,
day = "8",
doi = "10.14573/altex.1812191",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "3--17",
journal = "ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation",
issn = "1868-8551",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

AU - Hartung, Thomas

AU - de Vries, Rob

AU - Hoffmann, Sebastian

AU - Hogberg, Helena T.

AU - Smirnova, Lena

AU - Tsaioun, Katya

AU - Whaley, Paul Alexander

AU - Leist, Marcel

PY - 2019/1/8

Y1 - 2019/1/8

N2 - A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting – in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a “Wild West” or “anything goes” attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the “reproducibility crisis” discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as “big data” and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).

AB - A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting – in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a “Wild West” or “anything goes” attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the “reproducibility crisis” discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as “big data” and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).

U2 - 10.14573/altex.1812191

DO - 10.14573/altex.1812191

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 3

EP - 17

JO - ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation

JF - ALTEX Alternatives to Animal Experimentation

SN - 1868-8551

IS - 1

ER -