Learn more about our recommendations and download our Editor Checklist:
www.animalmethodsbias.org/projects/edi...
#SSP2026 #ScholComm #ScholarlyPublishing #SciPub #Editors #PeerReview #AnimalMethodsBias
✅ Editors should look out for unsubstantiated requests for animal experiments & intervene as appropriate
✅ When editors lack NAMs expertise, outside opinion should be sought to help judge reviewer requests for animal experiments
✅ Journals should invite reviewers & editors with NAMs expertise
The COLAAB's @mikalahsinger.bsky.social is traveling to ️☀️ Chula Vista, CA next month for the 📚 @scholarlypub.bsky.social Annual Meeting.
She’ll network & present a poster w/ recommendations for editors to help mitigate animal methods bias & ensure fair review of submissions without animal use. 👇
🫵 Are you interested in joining our ranks and engaging in the COLAAB's knowledge exchange?
📧 Send us an email: info@animalmethodsbias.org
👀 And stay tuned for more member spotlights!
Catharine is excited for the future of the COLAAB:
"In four years, animal methods bias has gone from an unnamed concept with disparate anecdotes to a globally recognized phenomenon with empirical evidence. I’m excited to see this recognition continue to grow."
Animal methods bias is an all-encompassing issue when it comes to biomedical research, touching on everything from publishing and funding to hiring and training.
Catharine describes her work with the COLAAB as having "vastly deepened [her] understanding of the research ecosystem."
First up in our COLAAB member spotlight series:
✨ Catharine E. Krebs, PhD ✨
Catharine does research policy work at the US-based nonprofit @pcrm.org. She is a founding member of both of our working groups, where she enjoys working with collaborators across sectors, disciplines, & global regions.
Pictured above: Catharine Krebs, Ignacio Tripodi, @mikalahsinger.bsky.social, @alexisthescientist.bsky.social, @ertrunnell.bsky.social, Jessica Kopew, Francesca Pistollato, Gabby Vidaurre, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Owen Kavanagh, and Melanie Ort.
Members not pictured: Ross Dobie and Kathrin Herrmann
Last week, we brought our Evidence & Mitigation Working Groups together to connect efforts to detect #AnimalMethodsBias with those working to prevent it.
🌟 Lots of energizing conversations + new ideas.
Soon, we'll be sharing more about the 👥 driving this work with some COLAAB member spotlights!
👋 Be sure to stop by our poster (Abstract 145, presented by Catharine E. Krebs, PhD) to learn more about how bias favoring animal use impacts the field and what we can do to shift the needle.
See you there!
www.animalmethodsbias.org/events/colaa...
#iMPSS @pcrm.org
Is peer review bias slowing down the adoption of #MicrophysiologicalSystems?
If you're attending the 2026 MPS World Summit in Washington, D.C. this May, let's connect! ✈
#AnimalMethodsBias #PeerReview #MPSWorldSummit #MPS #NAMs #organonchips
👉 Visit our Funder Advocacy page to learn how you can help reduce animal methods bias in grant review: www.animalmethodsbias.org/projects/fun...
There’s still work to do, but momentum is building 🙌
🏛 For more about what we think NIH and other funders should do to address animal methods bias, check out our latest paper: www.frontiersin.org/journals/tox...
✅ Lacking animal experiments does not weaken an application.
Those who witness biased reviews should report concerns in a timely manner: public.csr.nih.gov/EvaluationIn...
CSR investigates every report & compromised reviews are re-reviewed & practices adjusted to avoid recurrence.
✅ Study section descriptions are being updated to more clearly welcome growing #️⃣s of NAMs applications. In some cases, new study sections are being formed to better fit emerging methods.
✅ CSR is recruiting reviewers with NAMs expertise to cover study sections with ⬆️ NAMs-based applications.
We’re encouraged by what we learned from NIH’s response:
✅ CSR employs ENQUIRE, a rolling, data-driven evaluation of study sections: public.csr.nih.gov/EvaluationIn...
✅ A recurring theme in recent ENQUIRE evaluations has been the need to include NAMs among topics covered by study sections.
In Nov, we wrote to #NIH outlining steps to tackle animal methods bias in the review of grant applications.
Our aim was to build on NIH’s April 2025 commitment to address this issue as a part of its initiative to prioritize human-based research & reduce animal use.
bsky.app/profile/thec...
How NIH's Center for Scientific Review is Addressing Animal Methods Bias. CSR uses the ENQUIRE process to continuously evaluate and update study sections. Recent ENQUIRE evaluations have highlighted the need for study sections to cover NAMs. Study section descriptions are being updated, and new study sections are being formed to better fit emerging methods. CSR is actively recruiting reviewers with NAMs expertise. Applicants can initiate CSR’s bias reporting mechanism. All reports are investigated and affected applications are considered for re-review.
Last year, we urged NIH to take concrete steps to address #AnimalMethodsBias in grant review.
Here's what we learned from the conversation 🧵
#SciencePolicy #SciPol #PeerReview #GrantReview #ResearchFunding #NAMs #NIH #CSR 🧪
Dr. Krebs will discuss strategies for overcoming #AnimalMethodsBias in a session on barriers in animal-free research.
📆 Apply by April 3rd
✈️ Travel awards are available!
More info: pcrm.org/SummerImmersion
Application: app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/80243...
#NAMs #STEMtraining #PhDChat
COLAAB's Catharine Krebs, PhD of @pcrm.org will speak at the 2026 Summer Immersion on Innovative Approaches in Science, a 4-day training event on #NewApproachMethodologies & their many applications in basic, translational, & regulatory science. 🧪
Free & in-person at @johnshopkinssph.bsky.social!
Other speakers include Katerina Stoykova, Paul Locke, Anne Van Veen, Pandora Pound, Sara Green, and Michele Salluce.
📅 Register by March 17: www.tinyurl.com/nam-workshop
Thanks to Love Hansell, @simonlohse.bsky.social, and @nicodmueller.bsky.social for organizing this event!
March 19–20! Radboud Uni & @unibas.ch are hosting a workshop on the "Transition Beyond Animal Experimentation.”
🗣️ The COLAAB’s Dr. Krebs of @pcrm.org will speak about #AnimalMethodsBias as a barrier to this transition, including the latest evidence & bias mitigation strategies from our group.
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