Publication Bias in Animal Welfare Scientific Literature
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Animal welfare scientific literature has accumulated rapidly in recent years, but bias may exist which influences understanding of progress in the field. We conducted a survey of articles related to animal welfare or well being from an electronic database. From 8,541 articles on this topic, we randomly selected 115 articles for detailed review in four funding categories: government; charity and/or scientific association; industry; and educational organization. Ninety articles were evaluated after unsuitable articles were rejected. The welfare states of animals in new treatments, conventional treatments or control groups with no treatment were classified as high, medium or low according to one or more. More articles were published in which the welfare of animals in new treatments was better than that of animals in the conventional or no treatment groups, demonstrating a positive result bias. Failure to publish studies with negative or inconclusive results may lead to other scientists unnecessarily repeating the research. The authors’ assessments of the welfare state of the groups were similarly rated high, medium or low, and it was found that new treatments were rated lower if the research was funded by industry, and higher when funded by charities, with government funding agencies intermediate. These differences were not evident in the Five Freedoms assessment, demonstrating an authors’ assessment bias that appeared to support the funding agencies’ interests. North American funded publications rated the welfare of animals in New treatments higher and those in a Conventional or No Treatment lower, compared with European-funded publications. It is concluded that preliminary evidence was provided of several forms of publication bias in animal welfare science.
- Anon, (undated) Authors’ rights and responsibilities. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights?tab=1. Last accessed 16 Jan 2012.
- Bartussek, H. (1999). A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science, 61, 179–192. CrossRef
- Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454–465. CrossRef
- Browman, H. I., & Skiftesvik, A. B. (2011). Welfare of aquatic organisms: Is there some faith-based HARKing going on here? Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 94, 255–257. CrossRef
- Callaham, M. L., Wears, R. L., Weber, E. J., Barton, C., & Young, G. (1998). Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 254–257. CrossRef
- Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A. W., Cronin, E., et al. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE, 3(8), e3081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081q. CrossRef
- Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (1993). Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Tolworth, UK.
- Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950. CrossRef
- Kasanen, I., Inhilä, K., Vainio, O., Kiviniemi, V., Hau, J., Scheinin, M., et al. (2009). The diet board—welfare impacts of a novel method of dietary restriction in laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals, 43, 215–223. CrossRef
- Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326, 1167–1170. CrossRef
- Ohl, F., & van der Staay, F. J. (2012). Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. The Veterinary Journal, 192, 13–19. CrossRef
- Okike, K., Kocher, M., Mehlman, C. T., & Bhandan, M. (2008). Industry-sponsored research. Injury, 39, 666–680. CrossRef
- Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D., Dickersin, K., Flanagin, A., Hogan, J. W., et al. (2002). Publication bias in editorial decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2825–2828. CrossRef
- Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT (2010) Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 340, 698–702. CrossRef
- Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997). Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315, 640–645. CrossRef
- Webster, A. J. F., Main, D. C. J., & Whay, H. R. (2004). Welfare assessment: Indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare, 13, S93–S98.
- Yuan, J. C. C., Shyamsunder, N., Barao, V. A. R., Lee, D. J., & Sukotjo, C. (2011). Publication bias in five dental implant journals: An Observation from 2005 to 2009. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 26, 1024–1032.
- Publication Bias in Animal Welfare Scientific Literature
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
Volume 26, Issue 5 , pp 945-958
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Animal welfare
- Five Freedoms
- Publication bias
- Research funding