Table 5 Responses of researchers when protocol review was not approved by the reviewer
List of reasons not to agree | Number of responses | |
|---|---|---|
PI (8) | PS (7) | |
After submission of amended protocol upon request, the reviewer pointed out other items not notified previously | 3 (20.0) | 1 (6.7) |
Reviewers’ requesting reduction in the number of animals to use without reasonable evidence | 2 (13.3) | 3 (20.0) |
Reviewers’ requesting to amend the previously approved protocol with no valid rationale | 1 (6.7) | 3 (20.0) |
Others | 2 (13.3) | 0 |
Researchers’ complaints and requests about animal protocol preparation and review process | PI (15) | PS (12) |
|---|---|---|
Providing researchers with good examples of various animal protocols along with specific feedback is required | 6 (40.0) | 6 (50.0) |
Shortening approval delays is required | 4 (26.7) | 1 (8.3) |
Intervening processes such as extension and repetition without any other protocol change need to be simplified | 2 (13.3) | 0 (0.0) |
Amendment request from reviewers is hard to understand | 1 (6.7) | 3 (25.0) |
Integrated management system for IRB, IBC and IACUC is required | 2 (13.3) | 2 (16.7) |