Preregistration in Animal Experimentation – A Qualitative Study on Researchers’ Views in Switzerland

Background Over the past few years, the open science movement has witnessed growing interest from the scientific community in improving replicability and reproducibility in research. Preregistration is considered a valuable tool in promoting transparency on the conduct of research and in reducing questionable research practices. However, despite its benefits, preregistration is still rare in most fields of research, including animal research. Furthermore, there is limited information available on potential facilitators and barriers to preregistration in animal experimentation. Thus, this study addresses a gap in the existing literature by exploring researchers' experiences and views on preregistration, identifying facilitators and barriers, and gathering suggestions for better uptake. Methods This study constitutes the qualitative component of a larger cross-sectional mixed-methods project. Participants were recruited through an item in the online questionnaire of a quantitative survey, and snowballing and purposive sampling were used to increase the initial sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Swiss-based researchers who currently or previously held a license for animal experiments, or who worked in animal research. The final sample consisted of 30 interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed by two independent researchers using MAXQDA. Results Participants described preregistration as uncommon in animal research, and their views on the practice varied according to prior experience. Those who had previously preregistered studies expressed more positive views, whereas those without such experience were generally more critical. The main barriers to preregistration included administrative burden and time constraints, along with concerns about limited flexibility, and perceived incompatibility with exploratory research. Reported benefits comprise better study planning, adherence to good research practices, increased transparency and accountability, and overall perceived improved research quality. To improve the preregistration process and increase the uptake, participants suggested targeted training, institutional support, integrating preregistration with the existing governmental licensing system for animal experimentation, and maintaining voluntary rather than mandatory participation. Conclusions Animal researchers’ reflections on preregistration provide an invaluable source of information to guide tailored interventions aimed at facilitating broader adoption. Our findings corroborate those from a complementary quantitative survey study, further strengthening the validity and robustness of our conclusions.