Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin
{"title":"Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.","authors":"Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.
Methodology: Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.
Results: We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.
Conclusion: Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.
期刊介绍:
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.