We analysed research ethics committee (REC) letters. We found that RECs frequently identify process errors in applications from researchers that are not deemed “favourable” at first review. Errors include procedural violations (identified in 74% of all applications), missing information (68%), slip-ups (44%) and discrepancies (25%). Important questions arise about why the level of error identified by RECs is so high, and about how errors of different types should be handled.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: National Research Ethics Service; Economic and Social Research Council (grant number RES-000-22-1908).
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- What do research ethics committees say about applications to conduct research involving children?
- Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements?
- An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined
- Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project
- Research involving storage and use of human tissue: how did the Human Tissue Act 2004 affect decisions by research ethics committees?
- Research ethics committee decision-making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial
- In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees
- Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views
- Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK