Defining institutional review board application quality: critical research gaps and future opportunities

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-27 DOI:10.1177/17470161231187099
Kimberley Serpico
{"title":"Defining institutional review board application quality: critical research gaps and future opportunities","authors":"Kimberley Serpico","doi":"10.1177/17470161231187099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers’ regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231187099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers’ regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem.
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
定义机构审查委员会申请质量:关键的研究差距和未来的机会
研究申请的质量向机构审查委员会(IRB)发出了一个关于其作者的技能、能力、准备、沟通、经验和资源的明确信号。然而,研究和定义IRB应用程序质量的努力还不够。不注意IRB应用程序的质量是必然的,因为应用程序先于IRB审查,并且两者之间的质量感知可能是相互关联和相互依赖的。如果没有对质量的清晰理解,irb就不知道如何定义质量,研究人员也不知道如何实现质量。到目前为止,这一立场还没有系统的研究,未来的研究可以提供急需的经验验证。本文为将来研究IRB应用程序中的质量构成奠定了概念基础。它包括对质量的多学科研究的综述,以及对质量框架的讨论,类似于已发表文献中存在的人类参与者的研究。它还研究了联邦研究法规的背景和意义、监管负担、研究人员的监管素养,以及IRB专业人员在这个生态系统中的角色和责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis
×
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