Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.
Keywords: Animal use alternatives; bias mitigation; disease models; peer review; publishing.