完善科研伦理审查流程。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2017-08-18 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7
Stacey A Page, Jeffrey Nyeboer
{"title":"完善科研伦理审查流程。","authors":"Stacey A Page,&nbsp;Jeffrey Nyeboer","doi":"10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"2 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","citationCount":"43","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the process of research ethics review.\",\"authors\":\"Stacey A Page,&nbsp;Jeffrey Nyeboer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7\",\"citationCount\":\"43\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

摘要

背景:研究伦理委员会或机构审查委员会保护人类研究参与者的安全和福利。这些机构负责对拟议的研究进行独立评估,最终确保除非符合标准和法规,否则研究不能进行。正文:随着人类参与研究的数量不断增加,研究伦理委员会(reb)的工作量和责任也在不断增加。对审查过程的不满,特别是从提交到决定的时间间隔,在研究界是很常见的,但是很少有系统的努力来检查REB过程,这可能会导致效率低下。我们提供了一个模型来说明REB工作流程、利益相关者和责任。结论:更好地理解研究伦理审查的组成部分将有助于设定绩效目标、发现问题和制定解决方案,最终改进这一过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Improving the process of research ethics review.

Background: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.

Main body: Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.

Conclusion: Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative 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