You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 44, Issue 5
  • Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Brief report
Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers
Free
  1. Lucy Frith1,
  2. Carwyn Hooper2,
  3. Silvia Camporesi3,
  4. Thomas Douglas4,
  5. Anna Smajdor5,
  6. Emma Nottingham6,
  7. Zoe Fritz7,
  8. Merryn Ekberg8,
  9. Richard Huxtable9
  10. on behalf the Institute of Medical Ethics
  1. 1 Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2 St George’s, University of London, London, UK
  3. 3 Department of Social Science Health & Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK
  4. 4 Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  5. 5 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  6. 6 Law Department, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK
  7. 7 Department of Acute Medicine, Warwick university, and Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
  8. 8 The University of Northampton, Northamptonshire, UK
  9. 9 Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lucy Frith, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK; L.J.Frith{at}liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract

This document is designed to give guidance on assessing researchers in bioethics/medical ethics. It is intended to assist members of selection, confirmation and promotion committees, who are required to assess those conducting bioethics research when they are not from a similar disciplinary background. It does not attempt to give guidance on the quality of bioethics research, as this is a matter for peer assessment. Rather it aims to give an indication of the type, scope and amount of research that is the expected in this field. It does not cover the assessment of other activities such as teaching, policy work, clinical ethics consultation and so on, but these will be mentioned for additional context. Although it mentions the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), it is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the place of bioethics in the REF.

  • ethics

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104816

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Disclaimer This statement presents the views of the authors. It has been endorsed by the Institute of Medical Ethics, but not by the authors’ employing organisations or other organisations with or for which they work.

    • Competing interests The Institute of Medical Ethics co-owns and receives a share of the revenue from the Journal of Medical Ethics. TD is an editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you