Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How to cite ARRIVE
In your methods section, state which guideline resources you used to write your article, refer readers to the supplementary materials to view your completed checklist, and cite this reporting guideline. For example:
We used the ARRIVE writing guide when drafting this article, and the ARRIVE checklist (see supplementary materials A) to demonstrate adherence to the ARRIVE reporting guideline. [1].
You can use your reference manager to save citation information for this webpage, or copy the BibTeX below.
Who made ARRIVE?
Nathalie Percie Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J. Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl, Michael Emerson, Paul Garner, Stephen T. Holgate, David W. Howells, Natasha A. Karp, Stanley E. Lazic, Katie Lidster, Catriona J. MacCallum, Malcolm Macleod, Esther J. Pearl, Ole H. Petersen, Frances Rawle, Penny Reynolds, Kieron Rooney, Emily S. Sena, Shai D. Silberberg, Thomas Steckler, Hanno Würbel
See the ARRIVE development article for details on its authors.
How was ARRIVE made?
See the ARRIVE development article for details on how this guideline was originally developed.
The UK EQUATOR Centre then worked with ARRIVE’s authors to make ARRIVE easier to use by clarifying language, adding definitions, examples, extra information and resources. Although worded differently, the guidance on this website is conceptually the same as the original publication and can be used interchangeably.
Does ARRIVE prescribe structure?
No. ARRIVE does not prescribe a rigid format or standardized content. Consider each item and prioritize elements that are most relevant to your study, findings, context, and readers.
You may prefer to report an item in a different order, section, or in a table or figure. For example, some authors may prefer to include some methods items in their Results section. Others may call their Results section Findings, or have a completely different manuscript structure.
How to prioritize items and keep writing concise
Although all items should be reported, you should prioritize items most relevant to your study, findings, context, and readership.
You should include information in the article body when possible so it’s easy for readers to find. However, if you are worried about word counts or brevity, consider placing information in tables.
If you feel confident that an item is less important to your study, you could report it in an appendix or supplement. Be aware that supplementary materials may not be peer reviewed, are not indexed by search engines, and can be difficult for readers to find. Therefore, they are best only used for details you feel are less important, and you should point readers to them from the article body. For example, “For more details, see the supplementary materials A”.
The UK EQUATOR centre runs training on how to write concisely.
What to write if you feel an item is not applicable
If you think an item is not applicable, state why. You could state this in the text or in the reporting checklist. Remember to publish your completed reporting checklist as a supplement, and to refer authors to it from your methods section.
What to do if asked to remove guideline related content
If a colleague or reviewer asks you to remove content that is related to this guideline, you can direct them to this guideline and the explanation for why that item is important. If they insist, consider moving the item to a supplement, table or figure.
Where can I get general writing training?
The EQUATOR Network provides in-person training for writing research articles.
AuthorAID have resources, an online course, and mentoring to help authors.
Reuse
Citation
@article{sertARRIVEGuidelines202020,
author = {Sert, Nathalie Percie du and Hurst, Viki and Ahluwalia,
Amrita and Alam, Sabina and Avey, Marc T. and Baker, Monya and
Browne, William J. and Clark, Alejandra and Cuthill, Innes C. and
Dirnagl, Ulrich and Emerson, Michael and Garner, Paul and Holgate,
Stephen T. and Howells, David W. and Karp, Natasha A. and Lazic,
Stanley E. and Lidster, Katie and MacCallum, Catriona J. and
Macleod, Malcolm and Pearl, Esther J. and Petersen, Ole H. and
Rawle, Frances and Reynolds, Penny and Rooney, Kieron and Sena,
Emily S. and Silberberg, Shai D. and Steckler, Thomas and Würbel,
Hanno},
publisher = {Public Library of Science},
title = {The {ARRIVE} Guidelines 2.0: {Updated} Guidelines for
Reporting Animal Research},
journal = {PLOS Biology},
volume = {18},
number = {7},
pages = {e3000410},
date = {2020-07-14},
urldate = {2025-02-18},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410},
langid = {en},
abstract = {Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The
ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo
Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the
reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of
information to include in publications describing in vivo
experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately,
evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and
results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and
journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been
inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of
reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved.
Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and
information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used
a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the
guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes
the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes
the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting
of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to
implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that
the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have
also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E\&E)
document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item
in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide
illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure
that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped
to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and
thus reproducibility.}
}
