Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee. Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior. The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond. Incorporating implicit bias into research integrity education: Response to 'Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education'. The core epistemic responsibilities of universities: Results from a Delphi study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1