title: How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection.
abstract: 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.
authors: Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Electronic address: mark.hanson@umanitoba.ca.
authors: M L
authors: ML
authors: Hanson
authors: Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
authors: B A
authors: BA
authors: Wolff
authors: DuPont, Wilmington, Delaware, United States.
authors: J W
authors: JW
authors: Green
authors: Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Kivi
authors: Syngenta International Research Centre, Jealott's Hill, United Kingdom.
authors: G H
authors: GH
authors: Panter
authors: Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom; Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
authors: M St J
authors: MS
authors: Warne
authors: Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry (ACES), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Ågerstrand
authors: Institute for the Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, United Kingdom.
authors: J P
authors: JP
authors: Sumpter
mesh_terms: D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D054750:Ecotoxicology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D018570:Risk Assessment
keywords: Peer review; Publications; Quality; Relevance; Reliability; Reporting recommendations; Risk assessment