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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
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
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.