ArticleSociology2016
Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review.
Article in Sociology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Sexual Trauma Research: University Students Reactions to Participating in a Sexual Trauma Survey.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Rethinking ethical reflexivity and oversight in health research through an ecosystem approach: A workshop report.Research ethics · 2026Article
- Fitting a square peg in a round hole? A mixed-methods study on research ethics and collaborative health and social care research involving 'vulnerable' groups.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- 'The tabloid test': a qualitative interview study on the function and purpose of termination of pregnancy review committees in Victoria, Australia.Reproductive health · 2023Article
- Edge cases in animal research law: Constituting the regulatory borderlands of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.Studies in history and philosophy of science · 2021Article
- A New Era of Indigenous Research: Community-based Indigenous Research Ethics Protocols in Canada.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drawing on scholarship around academic freedom and new public management, this article explores the way in which research ethics committees in UK universities (URECs) can come to exhibit behaviour - common in their US equivalents - that prioritises the reputational protection of their host institution over and above academic freedom and the protection of research subjects. Drawing on two case studies the article shows both how URECs can serve to restrict research that may be 'embarrassing' for a university and how, in high profile cases, university management come to use such committees as mechanisms for internal discipline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.