How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection.

There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

[1]  Michael St J Warne,et al.  Evaluation of Criteria Used to Assess the Quality of Aquatic Toxicity Data , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[2]  Harold Varmus,et al.  Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Bad Reporting or Bad Science? Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals , 2014 .

[4]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research , 2014, The Lancet.

[5]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  "ToxRTool", a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[6]  Richard A. Becker,et al.  Does GLP enhance the quality of toxicological evidence for regulatory decisions? , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[7]  Richard A Brain,et al.  Effects of atrazine on egg masses of the yellow-spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and its endosymbiotic alga (Oophila amblystomatis). , 2015, Environmental pollution.

[8]  J. Sumpter,et al.  Effects of the synthetic estrogen 17α‐ethinylestradiol on the life‐cycle of the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) , 2001 .

[9]  Catherine A Harris,et al.  Could the Quality of Published Ecotoxicological Research Be Better? , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  Glenn W Suter,et al.  THE PERSPECTIVES COLUMN IS A REGULAR SERIES DESIGNED TO DISCUSS AND EVALUATE POTENTIALLY COMPETING VIEWPOINTS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ON CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. , 2016 .

[11]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  CRED: Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data , 2016, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[12]  W. Norwood,et al.  Implications of Cu and Ni toxicity in two members of the Hyalella azteca cryptic species complex: Mortality, growth, and bioaccumulation parameters , 2016, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[13]  Judi L. Durda,et al.  Data Quality Evaluation of Toxicological Studies Used to Derive Ecotoxicological Benchmarks , 2000 .

[14]  Joel N Meyer,et al.  A call for fuller reporting of toxicity test data , 2013, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[15]  C Rudén,et al.  Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. , 2011, Environmental pollution.

[16]  I. Cockburn,et al.  The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research , 2015, PLoS biology.

[17]  Andrew J Harford,et al.  Time to get off the fence: The need for definitive international guidance on statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data , 2012, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[18]  B. Marx The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1985 .

[19]  U. Tillmann,et al.  A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. , 1997, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  Michael J. Carvan,et al.  An Exploratory Analysis of Stream Teratogenicity and Human Health Using Zebrafish Whole-Sediment Toxicity Test , 2014 .

[21]  M. Mahoney Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system , 1977, Cognitive Therapy and Research.

[22]  John W Green,et al.  The drive to ban the NOEC/LOEC in favor of ECx is misguided and misinformed , 2013, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[23]  V. Garovic,et al.  Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm , 2015, PLoS biology.

[24]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances , 2011 .

[25]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[26]  Mike Roberts,et al.  Principles of sound ecotoxicology. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  H. Margolis Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative , 1998 .

[28]  Snezana Lawrence October , 1855, The Hospital.

[29]  J. Samulski,et al.  Who ’ s Afraid of Peer Review ? , 2009 .

[30]  Christopher W. Hickey,et al.  Revised Method for Deriving Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guideline Values for Toxicants , 2014 .