Article Text
PDFResearch ethics
Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?
Abstract
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
Request Permissions
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.
Copyright information:
2009 BMJ Publishing Group & Institute of Medical Ethics
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed - method evaluation of an improvement project
- An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics / scientific quality boundary examined
- Research involving storage and use of human tissue: how did the Human Tissue Act 2004 affect decisions by research ethics committees
- Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements
- What do research ethics committees say about applications to conduct research involving children
- Should research ethics committees be told how to think
- Research ethics committee decision - making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial
- Results of a self-assessment tool to assess the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in low - and middle - income countries
- Problems and development strategies for research ethics committees in China ’s higher education institutions
- The evaluation of complex clinical trial protocols: resources available to research ethics committees and the use of clinical trial registries — a case study