Animal Research: Policy Statement

Updated June 21, 2026

This document states the official editorial policy of the Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health (JSMCAH) regarding ethical oversight for research involving animals. It provides the basis for editorial decisions on manuscript acceptance and rejection on ethical grounds and may be cited in editorial correspondence with authors. For practical guidance on meeting these requirements, see the Animal Research: Author Decision Guide.

Overarching Commitment

JSMCAH is committed to ensuring that all research published in this journal is conducted responsibly and humanely, and where applicable, does not result in significant delay to shelter outcome or in euthanasia of the animals involved. Authors are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and ethical standards in the jurisdiction where the study was conducted.

The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts on ethical or welfare grounds when, in their judgment, studies involve unnecessary pain, distress, suffering, harm, or potential harm to animals or people. This policy applies to research conducted prior to submission as well as ongoing or planned research.

Absolute Requirements

Rule 1: Experimental Animals. JSMCAH will not publish research conducted on purpose-bred animals or animals sourced from Class B dealers. Submission of such research will result in rejection regardless of any IACUC or other approvals obtained.
Rule 2: Novel Procedures. Research involving procedures not yet established as accepted standards of veterinary clinical care must have received independent review prior to the conduct of the research. Acceptable review bodies include an IACUC or international equivalent, or an independent commercial or ad hoc committee with appropriate expertise. Research involving novel procedures submitted without evidence of prior independent review will not be considered for publication.

Institutional Authors

Authors affiliated with an institution are required to comply with their institution's animal research oversight requirements, which supersede JSMCAH policy. Authors must include their IACUC approval number (or international equivalent) in the Methods section of any prospective research manuscript. For retrospective studies, authors should attest to compliance with their institution's data review and confidentiality requirements. JSMCAH cannot independently verify institutional compliance and places this responsibility with the author.

Non-Institutional Authors

Retrospective and existing data. Include a declaration in the Methods section confirming that ethical approval was not required given the nature of the data.
Aggregated and database research. Describe data use permissions obtained from custodians and confidentiality protections for any human-identifiable data. Note that databases containing information about humans may also trigger human subjects research considerations; authors with questions are encouraged to contact the editor.
Prospective research using standard-of-care procedures. Authors are strongly encouraged to obtain permission from animal owners and/or sheltering organizations and to document this in Methods. Authors who did not obtain formal permission should contact the editor before submitting; the editorial team will consider context and circumstance.
Prospective research using novel procedures. Independent review is required regardless of institutional affiliation. See Absolute Requirements above.

Editorial Discretion

The editorial team is available for pre-submission consultation on questions of ethical classification, appropriate oversight, and documentation requirements. Authors are encouraged to reach out early, particularly in cases where the line between standard-of-care and novel procedures is unclear, research involves both animal outcomes and human data, or research was conducted prior to awareness of these guidelines.

The goal of this policy is to ensure animal welfare and the integrity of the research record, not to create barriers that preclude valuable research from the literature.

Illustrative Examples

A shelter veterinarian reviews outcome records for cats admitted over three years. No intervention was performed for research purposes.

✓ Suitable: declaration required

A TNR coordinator prospectively compares two standard ear-tipping techniques used in routine program operations and documents healing outcomes.

✓ Suitable: permission and description required

A veterinarian tests a novel wound closure technique not yet in clinical use. No IACUC or independent review was obtained before the study began.

✕ Not suitable: independent review required

A researcher analyzes a pet relinquishment matching database to assess time-to-adoption outcomes. No direct animal contact occurred.

✓ Suitable: data permissions and confidentiality description required

A university student conducts a prospective feeding trial using purpose-bred research dogs with full IACUC approval.

✕ Not suitable: purpose-bred animals

A community veterinarian enrolled client-owned cats in a prospective study of a standard diagnostic protocol but did not obtain formal owner consent.

⟳ Consult editor: context required

A non-institutional researcher evaluates a novel analgesic protocol in shelter dogs, having convened an independent ad hoc veterinary committee for review prior to beginning the study.

✓ Suitable: describe committee process in Methods

An author is uncertain whether their modified spay technique constitutes a novel procedure or a variation on accepted practice.

⟳ Consult editor before submitting