Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A manuscript reporting an in vivo mouse experiment that includes a dedicated methods subsection addressing randomisation and blinding, matching two of the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 items, rather than describing the experiment only in general narrative prose
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
A manuscript that reports statistical methods and sample size but omits any statement on randomisation or blinding has not met the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 in full — partial compliance with the checklist is not the same as compliance
Editorial commentary
ARRIVE 2.0 (Percie du Sert et al., 2020) is the 2020 revision of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research, originally published in 2010 (Kilkenny et al.) and maintained by the UK’s NC3Rs. The revision restructured the original 21-item checklist into two tiers, prioritised by importance to a reader’s ability to assess and reproduce the study.
The two-tier structure
The Essential 10 is the minimum reporting set every ARRIVE-compliant manuscript must address: study design, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomisation, blinding/masking, outcome measures, statistical methods, experimental animals, experimental procedures, and results. The Recommended Set adds eleven further items providing additional context: abstract, background, objectives, ethical statement, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, interpretation and scientific implications, generalisability/translation, protocol registration, data access, and declaration of interests. This term covers what ARRIVE 2.0 is and how it is structured; for the full checklist with what each item requires in practice, see the guide ARRIVE Guidelines for Animal Research Reporting: The Full 2.0 Checklist.
Why it exists as a reporting guideline, not a study-design standard
ARRIVE 2.0 governs what a manuscript must state about a study, not how the study itself must be designed or analysed — it is a documentation and transparency standard, comparable in role to CONSORT 2010 for human clinical trials. A study can be well-designed and still fail ARRIVE reporting by omitting, for example, whether outcome assessors were blinded to treatment group.
Why journals require it
Incomplete reporting of animal-study methods — particularly randomisation and blinding — has been linked in the methodological literature to inflated, non-reproducible effect sizes. Many journals publishing in vivo research now require ARRIVE-compliant reporting as a condition of submission or peer review, and some require authors to submit a completed ARRIVE checklist alongside the manuscript.
References
- Percie du Sert et al., ‘The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0’ (PLOS Biology, 2020); arriveguidelines.org.
Also known as
ARRIVE 2020 · ARRIVE Essential 10
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="ARRIVE 2.0"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/arrive-2-0" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/arrive-2-0",
"name": "ARRIVE 2.0",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/arrive-2-0",
"description": "ARRIVE 2.0 is the 2020 revision of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) reporting guideline, restructuring the original 2010 checklist into a 10-item \"Essential 10\" minimum-reporting set and an 11-item \"Recommended Set\" for animal research manuscripts.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/reproducibility#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/arrive-2-0",
"sameAs": [
"ARRIVE 2020",
"ARRIVE Essential 10"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-22T15:39:34",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
