Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study

Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008???2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018???2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just -61% in 2008???2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018???2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008???2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.

Automated summary

The most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility in the field of animal physiology is the inadequate reporting of key methodological details. Despite efforts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such attempts have been relatively unsuccessful so far.