“No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence”: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

“No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence”: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes

Published:2021-10-12 Issue:1-2 Volume:17 Page:102-113
ISSN:1556-2646
Container-title:Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
language:en
Short-container-title:Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Author:

Scott Anna M.¹^ORCID,Bryant E. Ann²,Byrne Jennifer A.³⁴^ORCID,Taylor Natalie⁵,Barnett Adrian G.⁶

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

2. Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Australia

3. NSW Health Statewide Biobank, NSW Health Pathology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

5. Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia

6. Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Communication,Education,Social Psychology

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15562646211048268

Reference33 articles.

1. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn

2. Barnett A., Byrne J. A., Scott A. M., Taylor N. (2020). Ethics petition. Retrieved from https://osf.io/nf48c/.

3. What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee

4. Content analysis of comments posted on Australian online news sites reporting a celebrity admitting smoking while pregnant

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Evidence-Based Guidelines for Low-Risk Ethics Applicants: A Qualitative Analysis of the Most Frequent Feedback Made by Human Research Ethics Proposal Reviewers;Journal of Academic Ethics;2024-03-25

2. An Analysis of Research Ethical Practices Information on Universities’ Websites in Developing and Developed Countries;Journal of Academic Ethics;2023-12-07

3. Planning a ‘negligible risk’ national health service survey? Counting the cost and strategies for success: a short report;Research Ethics;2023-07-31

4. How to reduce processing times for site‐specific assessments from 29 to 5 days using a common‐sense approach: it does not have to be that hard;Internal Medicine Journal;2023-03

5. How to streamline the low and negligible research ethics and governance review process from 80 to 10 days: submission to decision;Internal Medicine Journal;2022-05