A call for action: Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision‐making

Abstract

This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer‐reviewed research studies in regulatory decision‐making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research.

Emerging investigator series: use of behavioural endpoints in the regulation of chemicals

“…This is a problem that applies to peerreviewed studies in general, and not behavioural studies in particular, and it can be improved by scientic journals introducing reporting requirements and by increased awareness of the regulatory system among academic researchers. 20,120,121 What cannot be captured by this study are the studies that were disregarded in the early steps of the assessment process, e.g. because they were not searched for, or they were disregarded because the endpoint was not considered relevant.…”

Non‐Animal Strategies for Toxicity Assessment of Nanoscale Materials: Role of Adverse Outcome Pathways in the Selection of Endpoints

“…Thus, a vast majority of in vitro data available in the literature is not generated, interpreted or reported with a focus of supporting regulatory functions or decision making. [ 18 ] The same can be said for the specific in vitro models used in toxicology testing. Nonetheless, some of in vitro methods can serve as targeted approaches for specific toxicity endpoint testing to support the safety assessment of chemicals and NM.…”

Reliability and relevance evaluations of REACH data

“…Despite these efforts, improvement in the reporting of peer-reviewed studies has been proved to be slow 36. Further actions have been taken to raise academic researchers’ awareness of regulatory processes and their requirements on data37 as well as to encourage scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements in the peer-review process 38…”