The ethics committee as ghost author

Ethics committees (ECs) have a bad reputation for impeding, rather than facilitating research. Tales abound of delays and rejections of perfectly innocuous studies. Here, I argue that many committees actually improve the quality of the research proposal to such an extent that they deserve credit as...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Shaw, M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2011
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2011, Volume: 37, Issue: 12, Pages: 706
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816142476
003 DE-627
005 20230427161300.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2011-100120  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816142476 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816142476 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Shaw, M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The ethics committee as ghost author 
264 1 |c 2011 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Ethics committees (ECs) have a bad reputation for impeding, rather than facilitating research. Tales abound of delays and rejections of perfectly innocuous studies. Here, I argue that many committees actually improve the quality of the research proposal to such an extent that they deserve credit as authors in any resulting publications, or at least an acknowledgement of the contribution made.One of the reasons that applicants are often angry at ECs is that they question the science of the proposal. Many researchers believe that this is not the role of the EC, and indeed the recently revised governance arrangements for research ethics committees (GAFREC) document states that:A REC need not reconsider the quality of the science, as this is the responsibility of the sponsor and will have been subject to review by one or more experts in the field (known as ‘peer review’). The REC will be satisfied with credible assurancesthat the research has an identified sponsor and that it takes account of appropriate scientific peer review.1However, in many cases this advice simply cannot be followed. The job of an EC is to protect participants, and exposing patients to potential harm for the sake of … 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 37(2011), 12, Seite 706  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:37  |g year:2011  |g number:12  |g pages:706 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/23071996  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/56950/1/56950.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH doi match)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100120  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/37/12/706.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185596367 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816142476 
LOK |0 005 20220908053541 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#7BD68706A2CD6B95B9E0DD5D8B3FF32BA12FF238 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/23071996 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw