Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

Thomas Hartung, Rob De Vries, Sebastian Hoffmann, Helena Hogberg, Lena Smirnova, Katherine Tsaioun, Paul Whaley, Marcel Leist

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-17
Number of pages15
JournalAltex
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Data Display
Peer Review
Biological Science Disciplines
Information Storage and Retrieval
Artificial Intelligence
Social Justice
Checklist
Reading
Research
In Vitro Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. / Hartung, Thomas; De Vries, Rob; Hoffmann, Sebastian; Hogberg, Helena; Smirnova, Lena; Tsaioun, Katherine; Whaley, Paul; Leist, Marcel.

In: Altex, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 3-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hartung, T, De Vries, R, Hoffmann, S, Hogberg, H, Smirnova, L, Tsaioun, K, Whaley, P & Leist, M 2019, 'Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards', Altex, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3-17. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1812191
Hartung, Thomas ; De Vries, Rob ; Hoffmann, Sebastian ; Hogberg, Helena ; Smirnova, Lena ; Tsaioun, Katherine ; Whaley, Paul ; Leist, Marcel. / Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. In: Altex. 2019 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 3-17.
@article{afa8204774e043a1bd3ef995f231ac80,
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 Helena Hogberg and Lena Smirnova and Katherine Tsaioun and Paul Whaley and Marcel Leist",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.14573/altex.1812191",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "3--17",
journal = "ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten",
issn = "1868-596X",
publisher = "Elsevier GmbH",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards

AU - Hartung, Thomas

AU - De Vries, Rob

AU - Hoffmann, Sebastian

AU - Hogberg, Helena

AU - Smirnova, Lena

AU - Tsaioun, Katherine

AU - Whaley, Paul

AU - Leist, Marcel

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

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).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059829635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059829635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14573/altex.1812191

DO - 10.14573/altex.1812191

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 3

EP - 17

JO - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

JF - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

SN - 1868-596X

IS - 1

ER -