Methods

Research ethics review

Research ethics review examines a proposed study’s treatment of participants before the relevant activities begin. In covered US research, an institutional review board applies regulatory criteria; other jurisdictions use their own systems.

Are the proposed risks, recruitment practices, consent arrangements, and protections acceptable for this study and participant population?

How it works

  1. Prepare a protocol that a reviewer can actually assess: recruitment messages, eligibility, tasks, instruments, consent materials, risk responses, and data handling. Explain the scientific purpose so participant burdens can be evaluated alongside the knowledge sought.
  2. Use the institution’s determination process for the appropriate review route. In the US Common Rule framework, exempt categories, limited review, expedited procedures, and convened review have specific conditions. “Expedited” does not mean permission to skip scrutiny.
  3. Implement the protocol that received the relevant determination or approval. Build a record of versions, concerns, and proposed changes so new recruitment channels or more sensitive questions do not quietly turn into a different study.

Evidence: (45 CFR Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects, n.d.); (The Belmont Report, n.d.)

An interview protocol changes

Teaching scenario

Synthetic teaching scenario: A team plans interviews about study habits. Before submitting its materials, members add questions about panic attacks because those questions seem interesting. Reviewing the complete interview schedule reveals a different risk profile from the original description. The team identifies a response plan for distress, revisits whether each sensitive item is necessary, and presents the revised materials together. The teaching question is what the reviewers would need to assess, rather than whether a form with the word “approved” can be obtained quickly.

This example is constructed for learning. It does not report an observed research result.

What can you conclude?

It provides an independent opportunity to identify avoidable burdens, inequitable recruitment, and gaps in privacy or participant protections.

Evidence: (45 CFR Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects, n.d.); (The Belmont Report, n.d.)

Limits and common mistakes

  • An approval decision does not guarantee that no harm will occur or establish that every scientific conclusion will be correct.
  • US Common Rule criteria are jurisdiction-specific; local law and institutional requirements must be checked elsewhere.

A mistake to catch

Treating a study as automatically exempt because it is online, uses a survey, or belongs to a student project.

Evidence: (45 CFR Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects, n.d.); (The Belmont Report, n.d.)

Sources and inspection notes

Links checked October 21, 2026. Inspection scope is stated for each source; an access date is not a publication date.

  1. 45 CFR part 46: Protection of human subjects. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46

    US federal regulation for research within its scope Current text reached from the HHS regulations index; see especially 46.110–46.111. Checked 21 October 2026.

  2. The belmont report. (n.d.). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

    US foundational ethics report, 1979; not worldwide legislation Read principles and consent applications. Checked 21 October 2026.

Keep reading

Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-4-ethics

Nearest related OpenStax Psychology 2e reading. This is a course connection, not evidence for every specialist detail above.

Specialist reading: 45 CFR part 46: Protection of human subjects. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46

Related methods

Try the methods · Read a study · Explore psychological measures