You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research ethics
Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 18 May 2017
    Statistical analysis of decision making by research ethics committees

    Dear Editor,

    Angell et al conclude on the basis of the data that they present that the level of agreement between the ethics committees studied “may be described as slight” although it is “probably better than chance”. They do include the caveat that “polarised response categories…make the interpretation of κ statistics difficult”. There is no point in using a statistical test to make a judgement about the probability of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 18 May 2017
    Researchers' appreciation of ethics

    Dear Editor,

    Angell et al found that in 'only' 11/18 research applications did three research ethics committees agree entirely. I note that in 4/7 cases of disagreement, this was due to a mix of provisional and unfavourable opinions which I suggest reflects the willingness of many committees to offer a (very) provisional opinion to inadequately prepared researchers to help them to salvage their proposal and avoid th...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.

Other content recommended for you