Every peer review is different and there is no one-size-fits-all response to reviews. Nonetheless, the COLAAB developed the following guidelines and template responses to help authors to identify biased reviews and address them confidently. We encourage authors to refer to the Decision Tree for Responding to Biased Reviews to help determine how best to respond.
A reviewer’s animal methods bias can manifest in a variety of ways:
- as the use of biased language (see The Power of Language);
- as recommendations to add references to animal-based research or amend critiques on the limitations of animal methods;
- as requests for authors to perform animal-based experiments, often as a way to validate the results presented in the manuscript;
- or something else that we haven't heard yet. (Interested in sharing your personal experience with animal methods bias? Contact us!)
Authors should not feel obliged to comply with such reviews, especially in the case of reviewer requests to perform animal experiments. Rather, authors should thank reviewers for their time and respond to all comments using clear, persuasive, and precise language.
Decision Tree for Responding to Biased Reviews
To adequately respond to reviewers, authors must assess reviews for clarity, relevance, and feasibility. First, authors should ensure that the purpose of a reviewer’s request is well understood. If the review is unclear, authors should ask for clarification and further explanation.
Second, authors should analyze the relevance and feasibility of the request carefully. Here are some questions to ask:
- Is the request within the scope of the article or the goal of the experiment?
- Does it pertain to data already in the article that have been missed or misinterpreted?
- Would fulfilling the request be excessively burdensome in terms of time, resources, or cost?
- Is the reviewer requesting validation experiments that have already been cited or performed using a different method?
In such situations, authors may respond by clarifying the scope of their research and identifying the evidence already in the article, amending the article as necessary if anything is unclear, or explaining why the reviewer’s request is not otherwise justified.
It may also be the case that the reviewer makes a relevant suggestion—that an additional experiment would improve the study—but the authors feel that the use of animals in this context would not provide significant benefits to the study. This may be because the suggested experiment is not related to a major finding or because the suggested experiment has demonstrated low translational value in the field of study. In such cases, authors can argue that the balance of harm versus benefits, which is enshrined in the legislations of many countries as a prerequisite to use animals in research, would not be met and point to the relevant legislation or regulation.
Authors may determine that the reviewer has identified real shortcomings in the article or the experiments that need to be addressed. In this case, authors should seek to respond to these points while avoiding the use of animals. If feasible, this may be done by conducting additional experiments that would address the reviewer(s) concerns without using animals and instead using resources such as human-based models and datasets.
Alternatively, authors may agree with the shortcomings identified by the reviewer, but there is no alternative to the animal experiment suggested. In this case, authors can explain how the suggested experiment would be valuable but that due to the lack of an appropriate model, it is infeasible.