ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical oversight in impact evaluations: External advisory committees to assess programming risks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Public attitudes towards social media field experiments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Vulnerability in research ethics: A call for assessing vulnerability and implementing protections.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Live tutoring calls did not improve learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sierra Leone.Journal of development economics · 2023Article
- Ethical reporting of research on violence against women and children: a review of current practice and recommendations for future guidelines.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Cash, COVID-19 and aid cuts: a mixed-method impact evaluation among South Sudanese refugees registered in Kiryandongo settlement, Uganda.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Synthesizing evidence in sustainability science through harmonized experiments: Community monitoring in common pool resources.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Cross-disciplinary intersections between public health and economics in intimate partner violence research.SSM - population health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.
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.