ReviewJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2026
Ethical Opinions in Research Ethics Committees: A Narrative Review of Normative Foundations, Deliberative Architecture, and Quality Standards.
Review in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research ethics committees occupy a central position in scientific governance, yet the literature reveals a persistent gap in structured, theoretically grounded guidelines for drafting ethical opinions. Opinions are frequently characterised by insufficient substantiation and communicative opacity, eroding researcher trust and institutional legitimacy. This study provides an integrated framework for the production of quality ethical opinions. A narrative review was conducted through searches in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, supplemented by normative documents from the WHO, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, and World Medical Association. Opinion quality depends on three interdependent dimensions: normative grounding in foundational principles, deliberative integrity in collective processes, and communicative responsibility in documented reasoning. The most frequent deficiencies concern informed consent and risk-benefit analysis. Structured discretionary judgement proves superior to algorithmic standardisation. This work is original in integrating Habermasian communicative rationality with the Aristotelian concept of phronesis to propose a tripartite framework that transcends compliance-based approaches.
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.