- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?
Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):130-132 (2009)
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 handledAuthor's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Tis but a scratch: The human tissue act and the use of tissue for research, issues for research ethics committees.David Hunter - unknown
Incorporating ethics into business students' research projects: A process approach. [REVIEW]Michael Jay Polonsky - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1227-1241.
The activity of French Research Ethics Committees and characteristics of biomedical research protocols involving humans: a retrospective cohort study. [REVIEW]Evelyne Decullier, Véronique Lhéritier & François Chapuis - 2005 - BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1):1-10.
Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements?M. Dixon-Woods & E. L. Angell - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):377-381.
Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review. [REVIEW]Dominique Rivière - 2011 - Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):193-204.
Ethics in medical research: a handbook of good practice.Trevor Smith - 1999 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison.E. Angell, A. J. Sutton, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (11):662-664.
Ethics committees for "high tech" innovations in japan.Rihito Kimura - 1989 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (4):457-464.
The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia.Teresa Moore & Kristy Richardson - 2013 - Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (3):211-230.
Manual for research ethics committees.Sue Eckstein (ed.) - 2003 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Whose ethics, whose accountability? A debate about university research ethics committees.Andreas Hoecht - 2011 - Ethics and Education 6 (3):253 - 266.
Ethical function in hospital ethics committees.Guy Lebeer (ed.) - 2002 - Washington, D.C.: IOS Press.
Analytics
Added to PP
2010-09-13
Downloads
32 (#473,773)
6 months
2 (#1,157,335)
2010-09-13
Downloads
32 (#473,773)
6 months
2 (#1,157,335)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee.Simeon E. H. Davies - 2020 - Research Ethics 16 (1-2):1-26.
What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee.Caitlin Brandenburg, Sarah Thorning & Carine Ruthenberg - 2021 - Research Ethics 17 (3):346-358.
Research ethics in dissertations: ethical issues and complexity of reasoning.S. Kjellstrom, S. N. Ross & B. Fridlund - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (7):425-430.
Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review.Marlies van Lent, Gerard A. Rongen & Henk J. Out - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):83.
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Low-Risk Ethics Applicants: A Qualitative Analysis of the Most Frequent Feedback Made by Human Research Ethics Proposal Reviewers.Sarven S. McLinton, Sarah N. Menz, Bernard Guerin & Elspeth McInnes - forthcoming - Journal of Academic Ethics:1-24.
References found in this work
Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees.A. H. Ahmed & K. G. Nicholson - 1996 - Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (5):263-266.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7c76586df8-4c2ch uwo