Improving the process of research ethics review.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2017-08-18 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7
Stacey A Page, Jeffrey Nyeboer
{"title":"Improving the process of research ethics review.","authors":"Stacey A Page,&nbsp;Jeffrey Nyeboer","doi":"10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"2 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Background: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met.

Main body: Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities.

Conclusion: Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process.

完善科研伦理审查流程。
背景:研究伦理委员会或机构审查委员会保护人类研究参与者的安全和福利。这些机构负责对拟议的研究进行独立评估,最终确保除非符合标准和法规,否则研究不能进行。正文:随着人类参与研究的数量不断增加,研究伦理委员会(reb)的工作量和责任也在不断增加。对审查过程的不满,特别是从提交到决定的时间间隔,在研究界是很常见的,但是很少有系统的努力来检查REB过程,这可能会导致效率低下。我们提供了一个模型来说明REB工作流程、利益相关者和责任。结论:更好地理解研究伦理审查的组成部分将有助于设定绩效目标、发现问题和制定解决方案,最终改进这一过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信