ArticlePloS one2021
Ethics appraisal procedure in 79,670 Marie Skłodowska-Curie proposals from the entire European HORIZON 2020 research and innovation program (2014-2020): A retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists' perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for a successful EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral (MSCA) fellowship application.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHorizon 2020 was the most significant EU Research and Innovation programme ever implemented and included the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). Proposals submitted to the MSCA actions awere subject to the Ethics Appraisal Procedure. In this work we explored the ethics appraisal procedure in MSCA H2020.
methodsUsing a retrospective analysis of pooled anonymized data, we explored the ethics appraisal procedure on proposals submitted to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) during the entire Horizon 2020 program period (N = 79,670).
resultsOur results showed that one of the most frequently identified ethics categories was Data protection. We also detected slight differences between applicants' and the ethics reviewers' awareness of ethical issues. Trajectory analysis of all ethics screened proposals appearing on main lists showed that a minimal portion of all screened submissions required additional ethics checks in the project implementation phase.
conclusionPersonal data protection is one of the most represented ethics categories indicated among MSCA actions which exhaust ethics assessment efforts and may lead to "overkills" in ethics requirements. Excluding the majority of personal data protection assessment from the ethics assessment, except for parts which are directly related to ethics like "Informed consent procedures", might be necessary in the future. A gap in understanding of ethics issues between applicants and reviewers' points to the necessity to further educate researchers on research ethics issues.
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.