ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2017
Improving the process of research ethics review.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of "Ethics Creep" on Research, Teaching and Learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Survey of Canadian Researchers' Experience with Research Ethics Boards.Canadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2026Article
- Rethinking Sexual Trauma Research: University Students Reactions to Participating in a Sexual Trauma Survey.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Assessing satisfaction and performance of the CUREC electronic submission system.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Practical templates for digital health ethics applications in Sweden: lessons from a sensor-based monitoring study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Does the emotional burden of participating in trauma-related surveys discourage future participation? A population-based study.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Reporting ethical approval in case reports and case series in 12 consecutive years: A systematic review.Health care science · 2024Review
- A transformative solution to build effective, transparent, and resilient "fit-for-purpose" national health research ethics systems.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
- An Evaluation of the Technical Review Process of the UP PGH Department of Medicine.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Enablers and Barriers of Research Engagement Among Clinician Researchers: Nursing, Allied Health and Medical Professionals.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- [Variability and discrepancies between Ethics Committees in the evaluation of academic research projects]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2023Article
- Knowledge and attitudes of Chinese medical postgraduates toward research ethics and research ethics committees: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Review
- Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded (ABCDEF) publishing.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Understanding Constraints and Enablers of Turnaround Time for Ethics Review: The Case of Institutional Review Boards in Tanzania.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Challenges and Best Practices in Ethical Review of Human and Organizational Factors Studies in Health Technology: a Synthesis of Testimonies.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Article
- Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials and Collaborative Research in Africa: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives.JCO global oncology · 2020Review
- Exploring the challenges of ethical conduct in quality improvement projects.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch 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.
conclusionBetter 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.
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.