Reporting the Ethical Compliance in Current Research:  A Rapid Literature Review

Giovani Mercado

Authors

Giovani Mercado +639276326832

Keywords:

research ethics, rapid literature review, ethical considerations

Abstract

This study examines the ethical compliance of the papers submitted to two conferences, namely the 10^th International Scholars’ Conference and the 6^th International Research Forum held in the Philippines. Using a rapid literature review, 169 papers were identified, out of which 53 were excluded. The remaining 116 studies were scanned for ethical elements such as the declaration of observance to confidentiality, anonymity, the use of informed consent, and the right to withdraw at any time. Also noted were studies that underwent ethical review by institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees (RECs). Findings reveal that there were more than 10,000 participants in the papers included in the review. Of the 116 studies, 66% reported adhering to the confidentiality requirement, 54% gave out informed consent, 51% observed voluntary participation, 34% promised anonymity, and only 22% advised that participants may withdraw from the study at any time. More than half, or 53%, of these studies were cleared by their IRBs or RECs. These results capture the status of compliance with the elements of ethical research when compared with current practice. This moderate level of compliance to a key indicator of reliability in research points to the need for more vigilance toward ethical practice not only in higher educational institutions but also to research in general.

Article Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bos, J. (2020). Research ethics for students in the social sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6

Carpentier, R. & McGillivray, B. (2020). Protecting Participants in Clinical Trials Through Research Ethics Review in. In Iphofen, R. (ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity (pp. 91-106) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2

Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10) 1435–1443. DOI: 10.1177/1049732312452938

Cooper, H. (2016). Ethical choices in research: Managing data, writing reports, and publishing results in the social sciences. American Psychological Association.

Farrimond, H. (2013). Doing ethical research. Pallgrave Macmillan.

Fujii, L.A. (2012). Research ethics 101: Dilemmas and responsibilities. Political Science and Politics, 45(04). doi:10.1017/S1049096512000819

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Iphofen, R. (Ed.). (2020). Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2

Manton, A., Wolf, L.A., Baker, K.M., Carman, M.J., Clark, P.A., Henderson, D., & Zavotsky, K.E. (2014). J Emerg Nurs, 40:92-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2013.11.001

Medical University of South Carolina Libraries (MUSC). (n.d.). Systematic reviews: Question formulation frameworks. https://musc.libguides.com/systematicreviews/researchquestion#loaded

Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2019). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7(2020) 100777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777

Oliver, P. (2003). The student’s guide to research ethics. Open University Press.

Oliver, P. (2010). The student’s guide to research ethics, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Education.

Philippine Health Research Ethics Board. (2022). National ethical guidelines for research involving human participants 2022. Philippine Council for Health Research and Development.

Plano Clark, V.L. & Creswell, J.W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Pearson Education. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, 41(4), 175-186.

Popenoe, R., Langius-Eklöf, A., Stenwall, E., & Jervaeus, A. (2021). A practical guide to data analysis in general literature reviews. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158521991949

Santos, C. M. C., Pimenta, C. A. M., & Nobre, M. R. C. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev Latino-am Enfermagem, 15(3), 508–5011. DOI:10.1590/s0104-11692007000300023

The University of Melbourne Library. (2024). Which review is that? A guide to review types. https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

Whitney, S. (2016). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer.

World Medical Association. (2022). WMA declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/