Abstract
BackgroundResearch 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 bodyConcurrent 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.ConclusionBetter 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.
Highlights
Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants
Instances of research misconduct and abuse of research participants have established the need for research ethics oversight to protect the rights and welfare of study participants and the integrity of the research enterprise [1, 2]
Research Ethics Boards (REBs) often operate under the auspices of postsecondary institutions
Summary
The activities, roles, and responsibilities identified in the ethics review model illustrate that it is a complex activity and that “the REB” is not a single entity. Success depends in part on the institutional context, where standards and expectations should be well communicated, and resources like education and administrative support provided, so that capacity to execute responsibilities is assured. Applying this model will assist in identifying activities, accountabilities, and baseline performance levels. This information will contribute to improving local practice when deficiencies are identified and solutions implemented, such as training opportunities or reduction in duplicate activities. The identified problems and their suggested solutions would contribute to enhanced timeliness of review and to enhanced quality of review and human participant protection
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
