Preclinical researchers have long acknowledged the critical need for accurate dosimetry in the conduct of radiation-exposure studies involving living systems. Although radiation dosimetry is required to be National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable for human irradiation protocols, there were previously only limited requirements stipulating accurate radiation exposures for preclinical radiation studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In one of the earliest identified publications (1956) that addressed radiation dosimetry in murine studies, Hurst et al. (Hurst et al. 1956) discussed their calculations surrounding estimating neutron responses, and “distribution of of absorbed energy versus LET”. In 2009, Zoetelief et al. (Zoetelief et al. 2001) outlined European efforts to harmonize X-ray dosimetry studies in radiation biology, which resulted in the establishment of a protocol to improve dosimetry oversight and allow for better comparison of results across different institutions. It is, however, unclear if these early efforts substantially changed the approach of biologists to ensuring accurate and reproducible dosimetry in their radiation research. The lack of consideration of dosimetry in in vitro and in vivo work was further explored in 2011 during the “Radiation Dose is More than a Number” workshop convened by NIST, and co-sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The report that followed (Desrosiers et al. 2013) made nine recommendations that ranged from coordinating with radiation physicists during the experimental design phase and including more setup and dosimetry details in publications, to establishing working groups to develop protocols, and implementing formal dosimetry intercomparison programs. In an attempt to address the latter suggestion, and ensure rigor and reproducibility in their funded research portfolio consistent with NIH grants policy , the NIAID Radiation and Nuclear Countermeasures Program (RNCP) released a request for proposals (NIAID-NIH-RFP-NIHAI201800020 ) in 2019, seeking to make a single contract award for “RNCP-Wide Dosimetry Guidance & Monitoring of Sources and Irradiation Protocols”. This funding opportunity requested that offerors develop a consistent means of dosimetry comparison and reproducibility, as well as provide the administrative foundation necessary to facilitate and coordinate dosimetry activities in partnership with the NIAID. Respondents were asked to provide services, facilities, expertise, and capabilities to develop a centralized dosimetry harmonization effort that fits the resources and circumstances of projects across the funded RNCP portfolio. The contract award was made in 2020 to the University of Wisconsin (Principal Investigator Larry DeWerd), who established a harmonization protocol to encompass all the irradiators in use across the RNCP-funded portfolio of grants, contracts, and inter-agency agreements. In 2019, the RNCP also became concerned with the specifics of establishing and reporting neutron dosimetry and convened a “Neutron Radiobiology and Dosimetry Workshop” with presentations from 17 subject matter experts, planned in collaboration with the Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The meeting report that was published in 2021 (Stricklin et al. 2021) explored historical neutron exposure research and highlighted the need for harmonized reporting of exposure and experimental parameters. The authors concluded that efforts should be made to update computer coding for neutron dosimetry estimates, government policies needed to be re-visited in terms of expected radiation energy spectrums, and funding agencies must make key investments in consideration of neutron dosimetry, to improve science and ensure radiation emergency preparedness. All of these early attempts to ensure the use of accurate dosimetry in research laboratories culminated in the current effort to take the next step and require that sufficient information be included in published manuscripts, such that reviewers and editors can be assured that the irradiations were carried out correctly, and readers can have the necessary information to replicate published experiments.