ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
Reasoning "Uncharted Territory": Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Research Ethics Board Membership and Expertise.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Ethical and legal considerations in social media research for health technology assessment: conclusions from a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- "He's under oath": Privacy and Confidentiality Views Among People Who Inject Drugs Enrolled in a Study of Social Networks and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Hepatitis C Virus Risk.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
- Defining ethical standards for the application of digital tools to population health research.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Article
- Article
- Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-Saharan Africa.South African journal of scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The fast changing field of social media (SM) research presents unique challenges for research ethics committees (RECs). This article examines notions of experience and expertise in the context of REC members reviewing proposals for SM research and considers the role of the RECs in this area of review. We analyze 19 interviews with REC members to highlight that a lack of personal and professional experience of SM, compounded by a lack of institutional and professional guidelines, mean many REC members feel they do not possess sufficient expertise to review SM research. This view was supported by 14 interviews with SM researchers. REC members drew on strategies to overcome their lack of experience, although most SM researchers still found this problematic, to varying degrees. We recommend several steps to ensure REC expertise in SM research keeps pace of this fast-developing field, taking a pro-active, dialogic approach.
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.