Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41940607›Full record

ArticleCanadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie2026

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.

Kelly Gallagher-Mackay, Karen L Robson, Alexandra Pulchny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kelly Gallagher-MackayWilfred Laurier University, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9338-3631
Karen L RobsonMcMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Alexandra PulchnySt. Thomas University, New Brunswick, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6731-5092

Funding

Social Science and Humanities Research Council 430-2022-00853Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 430-2022-00853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Designed to protect the dignity of research subjects, there is limited data on either the effectiveness of Research Ethics Boards or on the scope of the unintended effects of REB processes on core university functions of research, teaching and learning. This article shares results from an online survey on unintended effects, disseminated to postsecondary faculty and students in Social Sciences and Humanities across Canada (n = 620). Key findings include: 78% of respondents report REB processes deter them from undertaking research at all, including minimal risk research, and the prospect of REB review shapes research projects, particularly relating to equity or vulnerable populations. Seventy percent of faculty avoid assigning students research assignments with human subjects because of REB concerns, and 58% have advised graduate students to avoid research with primary data. The authors advocate for robust use of Tri-Council powers to develop feasible reforms to promote research and limit ethics creep.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumanitiesResearch PersonnelSocial SciencesCanadaHumansLearningTeachingUniversitiesethicspurposes of universityresearch ethics boardstri‐council policy statement – 2nd edition (TCPS‐2)

Identifiers

PMID41940607
PMCPMC13051637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.