| academic journal | Q737498 |
| open-access journal | Q773668 |
| scientific journal | Q5633421 |
| P6981 | ACNP journal ID | 2940534 |
| P8375 | Crossref journal ID | 159405 |
| P1250 | Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI) SNO/CNO | 137827 |
| P5115 | Directory of Open Access Journals ID | 1747-0161 |
| 2047-6094 | ||
| P1058 | ERA Journal ID | 34970 |
| P236 | ISSN | 1747-0161 |
| 2047-6094 | ||
| P7363 | ISSN-L | 1747-0161 |
| P1277 | JUFO ID | 85827 |
| P1055 | NLM Unique ID | 101598510 |
| P856 | official website | http://rea.sagepub.com/ |
| http://www.research-ethics-review.com/electronic/ | ||
| P10283 | OpenAlex ID | S2764801657 |
| P3181 | OpenCitations bibliographic resource ID | 2418015 |
| P7662 | Scilit journal ID | 598546 |
| P1156 | Scopus source ID | 21100344997 |
| P972 | catalog | Directory of Open Access Journals | Q1227538 |
| P275 | copyright license | Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial | Q6936496 |
| P17 | country | United Kingdom | Q145 |
| P495 | country of origin | United Kingdom | Q145 |
| P1240 | Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level | 1 | |
| P8875 | indexed in bibliographic review | Scopus | Q371467 |
| P407 | language of work or name | English | Q1860 |
| P921 | main subject | ethics | Q9465 |
| P123 | publisher | SAGE Publishing | Q251266 |
| P1476 | title | Research Ethics Review |
| Q114992149 | A Plea for Consistency in Ethical Review |
| Q114992185 | A University Wide Model for the Ethical Review of Human Subjects Research |
| Q114991919 | A case study of researchers’ knowledge and opinions about the ethical review process for research in Botswana |
| Q112780902 | A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication |
| Q114297267 | A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
| Q57238442 | A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research |
| Q57913905 | Advance directives in dementia research: The opinions and arguments of clinical researchers − an empirical study |
| Q111891660 | Advice for Supervising PhD Students during the Ethical Approval Process: A Research Student's Perspective |
| Q36715554 | Altruistic reasoning in adolescent-parent dyads considering participation in a hypothetical sexual health clinical trial for adolescents |
| Q114992156 | An Alternative University-Wide Model for the Ethical Review of Human Subject Research |
| Q111849666 | An Apple a day keeps the research ethics committee away? |
| Q111892730 | Are we educating our research ethics committees? |
| Q114992063 | Assessing Clinical Trial Informed Consent Comprehension in Non-Cognitively-Impaired Adults: A Systematic Review of Instruments |
| Q113242677 | At the Genesis of a Research Idea: Defending and Defining a Duty Prior to Ethics Review |
| Q126315923 | Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices |
| Q114992020 | Book Review |
| Q111892766 | COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider |
| Q111849944 | Call for Papers: Special Issue of Research Ethics on Structures for Research Ethics Committees and Research Ethics Review |
| Q114991996 | Call for Papers: Special Issue of Research Ethics on Structures for Research Ethics Committees and Research Ethics Review |
| Q113755156 | Can an ethics code help to achieve equity in international research collaborations? Implementing the global code of conduct for research in resource-poor settings in India and Pakistan |
| Q128199489 | Can and should the research–therapy distinction be maintained? Reflections in the light of innovative last-resort treatment |
| Q111893154 | Can research ethics committees stop unethical international trials? |
| Q127280544 | Child and parent perceptions of participating in multimethod research in the acute aftermath of pediatric injury |
| Q110787407 | Clinical biobanks in Italy and Liguria: Ethical and social issues, initiatives at the national, regional and local level |
| Q35760287 | Conducting Ethical Research with Correctional Populations: Do Researchers and IRB Members Know the Federal Regulations? |
| Q114992124 | Consent in School-Based Research Involving Children and Young People: A Survey of Research from Systematic Reviews |
| Q114971030 | Contamination of overt data with covert data |
| Q113266820 | Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research |
| Q111854453 | Does Attendance of Students and Supervisors at Meetings Affect the Opinions of NHS Research Ethics Committees of Student Projects? |
| Q111891056 | Does Researchers' Attendance at Meetings Affect the Initial Opinions of Research Ethics Committees? |
| Q28607116 | Does science need bioethicists? Ethics and science collaboration in biomedical research |
| Q111848915 | Drip-Feeding: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Influences Research Ethics Committees |
| Q114971036 | Editorial: Continuous consent to, or discreet control over, sharing digital data? |
| Q114971037 | Editorial: Tamiflu and the open data campaign |
| Q114060285 | Editorial: the unexpected power of research ethics |
| Q114991998 | Effective Streamlining of Ethics and Governance Processes: Fact or Fiction? |
| Q114991889 | Enhancing ethics review of social and behavioral research: developing a review template in Ethiopia |
| Q111894130 | Establishing a Research Ethics Committee in a Business School: A Chairperson's Perspective |
| Q114971052 | Ethical Issues in Data Collection |
| Q114971050 | Ethical Issues in Data Collection: A Commentary |
| Q114992048 | Ethical Issues in the Use of In-Depth Interviews: Literature Review and Discussion |
| Q111849928 | Ethical Review of Action Research: The Challenges for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees |
| Q114992024 | Ethical Review: Barrier or Facilitator to Research? |
| Q111849400 | Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data |
| Q114991956 | Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study |
| Q114991984 | Ethical imperialism or ethical mindfulness? Rethinking ethical review for social sciences |
| Q126300370 | Ethical reflections on children’s participation in educational research during humanitarian crises |
| Q114060268 | Ethical research in the COVID-19 era demands care, solidarity and trustworthiness |
| Q114991916 | Ethical review and qualitative research competence: Guidance for reviewers and applicants |
| Q58883861 | Ethical review boards are poor advocates for patient perspectives |
| Q114971024 | Ethically important moments as data: reflections from ethnographic fieldwork in prisons |
| Q111848006 | Ethics Committee Membership Selection: A Moral Preference Tool |
| Q114992134 | Ethics Review in Norway: Psychologists and Psychology Projects |
| Q114992034 | Ethics in Social Science: Regulation, Review or Scrutiny? |
| Q113755153 | Ethics review and conversation analysis |
| Q114991892 | Ethics review and freedom of information requests in qualitative research |
| Q114992132 | European Forum for Good Clinical Practice Launches its Report on ‘The Procedure for the Ethical Review of Protocols for Clinical Research Projects in the European Union’ |
| Q108863412 | Evaluating the prospects for university-based ethical governance in artificial intelligence and data-driven innovation |
| Q120936880 | Everyone to be Research Patient |
| Q111891964 | Evolving power dynamics in an unconventional, powerless ethics committee |
| Q111892757 | Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study |
| Q114971033 | Expert perspectives on ethics review of international data-intensive research: Working towards mutual recognition |
| Q110986959 | Eyes wide shut: Ethical issues in avoiding the need for disclosure of incidental findings in research |
| Q57705441 | Facebook emotional contagion experiment controversy |
| Q114297268 | Faking participant identity: Vested interests and purposeful interference |
| Q114971038 | Freedom of Information and Research Data |
| Q114992002 | Giving an Edge to Ethics Review? |
| Q111854033 | Good intentions and dangerous assumptions: Research ethics committees and illicit drug use research |
| Q110787405 | Governing Human Genetic Databases, Biobanks and Research Tissue Banks |
| Q114992175 | Guidelines for Ethical Review of Qualitative Research |
| Q111854260 | Helping Research Ethics Committees Share Their Experience, Learn from Review and Develop Consensus: An Observational Study of the UK Shared Ethical Debate |
| Q128221782 | Hostage authorship and dirty hands: A reply to Tang |
| Q114991959 | How idiocultures and warrants operate independently in New Zealand health ethics review boards |
| Q110787406 | Human tissue biobanks: the balance between consent and the common good |
| Q114991872 | Identifying and addressing nonrational processes in REB ethical decision-making |
| Q111849135 | Illegality in the Research Protocol: The Duty of Research Ethics Committees under the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive |
| Q127153434 | Improving dissemination of study results: perspectives of individuals with cystic fibrosis |
| Q114992077 | Independence of Ethical Review and Improving Patient Involvement: AREC Conference, Cardiff 2008 |
| Q56905273 | Informed Consent: Is it Sacrosanct? |
| Q115384906 | Informed consent in a tuberculosis genetic study in Cameroon: information overload, situational vulnerability and diagnostic misconception |
| Q114991934 | Institutional review boards: A flawed system of risk management |
| Q111860302 | Introducing the National Social Care Research Ethics Committee |
| Q110787409 | Invited Editorial: Patient centric initiatives (PCIs) – a shift in the governance of science: Lessons from the biobanks world |
| Q111854523 | Lay members of New Zealand research ethics committees: Who and what do they represent? |
| Q111865912 | Learning from Each other — The International Experience the First Seminar Organized by the AREC University Sector Committee Birmingham, March 2008 |
| Q111854268 | Liability in the Law of Tort of Research Ethics Committees and Their Members |
| Q114992045 | Making our Own Decisions: Researching the Process of ‘Being Informed’ with People with Learning Difficulties |
| Q114991973 | Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review |
| Q111891584 | Methodological Considerations in Ethical Review — 1.: Scientific Reviews: What Should Ethics Committees Be Looking For? |
| Q114992037 | Methodological Considerations in Ethical Review — 2.: Are the Study Aims Justified and is the Design Appropriate? |
| Q114971043 | Methodological Considerations in Ethical Review — 3.: Sampling and Data Analysis |
| Q114992033 | Methodological Considerations in Ethical Review — 4. Research Conduct |
| Q56783139 | Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? |
| Q111853740 | Navigating multisite research set-up and approvals: helping researchers on the ground—a commentary |
| Q114991895 | Navigating research ethics in the absence of an ethics review board: The importance of space for sharing |
| Q115384909 | Negotiating access to research sites and participants within an African context: The case of Cameroon |
| Q111891097 | Negotiating the practicalities of informed consent in the field with children and young people: learning from social science researchers |
| Q111865189 | New Zealand Research Ethics Committee Matters |
| Q111850812 | Non-negligent harm, clinical trials and the NHS: Should research ethics committees be activists? |
| Q111891949 | On the Ethics Committee: The Expert Member, the Lay Member and the Absentee Ethicist |
| Q111891065 | On-site monitoring of clinical trials by an Ethics Committee in India: a road less travelled |
| Q122360521 | One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity |
| Q114991965 | PAeDS-MoRe: A framework for the development and review of research assent protocols involving children and adolescents |
| Q114254702 | Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: should we be too bothered with a causal relationship? |
| Q114991906 | Pragmatic clinical trials and the consent process |
| Q111850219 | Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees |
| Q111849315 | Principled Ethics Review: Governance Arrangements for University Research Ethics Committees |
| Q113755149 | Principlism and citizen science: the possibilities and limitations of principlism for guiding responsible citizen science conduct |
| Q114992092 | Process Consent and Research with Older Persons Living with Dementia |
| Q114992109 | Protecting or Empowering the Vulnerable? Mental Illness, Communication and the Research Process |
| Q113242678 | Protecting the Volunteer: A Question of Law versus Ethics |
| Q36286124 | Providing ethical guidance for collaborative research in developing countries |
| Q110787408 | Public deliberation to develop ethical norms and inform policy for biobanks: Lessons learnt and challenges remaining |
| Q111892602 | Recruiting pupils for a school-based eye study in Nigeria: Trust and informed consent concerns |
| Q113755158 | Reporting incidental findings from non-biological assessments in human subject research |
| Q111892748 | Research Ethics Committees and the Law: Indemnity and Independence |
| Q111892596 | Research Ethics Committees and the Legality of the Protocol: A Rejoinder and a Challenge to the Department of Health |
| Q111853682 | Research Ethics Committees in Europe — Living with Diversity |
| Q111891387 | Research Ethics Committees: A Personal Perspective |
| Q111892225 | Research Ethics Committees: The Business of Society and Medicine |
| Q114992043 | Research Ethics Review and Mental Capacity: Where Now after the Mental Capacity Act 2005? |
| Q128567829 | Research Ethics in Correspondence Testing: An Update |
| Q111892058 | Research Participants' Views on Ethics in Social Research: Issues for Research Ethics Committees |
| Q126071462 | Research ethics by design: A collaborative research design proposal |
| Q111858304 | Research ethics committees: The ineligibles |
| Q111891292 | Research ethics committees: The ineligibles |
| Q114971023 | Research ethics in practice: challenges of using digital technology to embed the voices of children and young people within programs for fathers who use domestic violence |
| Q114991902 | Research governance review of a negligible-risk research project: Too much of a good thing? |
| Q127147156 | Research integrity: environment, experience, or ethos? |
| Q121878049 | Researchers’ reflections on ethics of care as decolonial research practice: understanding Indigenous knowledge communication systems to navigate moments of ethical tension in rural Malawi |
| Q114991875 | Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice |
| Q56060306 | Resolving ethical challenges when researching with minority and vulnerable populations: LGBTIQ victims of violence, harassment and bullying |
| Q111891169 | Response to Schrag: What are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review |
| Q111892812 | Rethinking research ethics committees in low- and medium-income countries |
| Q114991964 | Review of measurement instruments in research ethics in the biomedical sciences, 2008−2012 |
| Q111859389 | Review of the Regulatory and Governance Environment for Medical Research in the UK with a Particular Focus on Clinical Trials. The Academy of Medical Sciences — Call for Evidence; National Research Ethics Advisors' Panel/Association of Research Ethi |
| Q57519260 | Revisions to the Common Rule: A proposal in search of evidence |
| Q111849504 | Science review in research ethics committees: Double jeopardy? |
| Q113242676 | Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing |
| Q111849032 | Sharing Ethical Debates across Research Ethics Committees |
| Q114971048 | Sharing Research Data and Confidentiality: Restrictions Caused by Deficient Consent Forms |
| Q114991954 | Shifting from research governance to research ethics: A novel paradigm for ethical review in community-based research |
| Q111856522 | Should Research Ethics Committees Be Observing the Law or Working by Ethical Principles? |
| Q126349891 | Should research misconduct be criminalized? |
| Q122394769 | Social Care and Social Work Research – Different Ethics?; AREC Conference, London 2007 |
| Q114992052 | Social Research and Ethics Review |
| Q114991981 | Social science and ethics review: A question of practice not principle |
| Q111865679 | Standards for Research Ethics Committees: Purpose, Problems and Possibilities |
| Q111892075 | Statistical Review for NHS Ethics Committees: Personal Experiences and Concerns |
| Q111866005 | Style Matters: An Analysis of 100 Research Ethics Committee Decision Letters |
| Q111850724 | Techno-Research and Cyber-Ethics: Challenges for Ethics Committees |
| Q111850254 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees (AREC) |
| Q111891611 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees – News |
| Q114992122 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees – News |
| Q111855557 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — A Brief History |
| Q111849082 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992128 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992137 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992166 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992006 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992027 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q114992065 | The Association of Research Ethics Committees — News |
| Q110659995 | The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences |
| Q114991900 | The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review? |
| Q111850246 | The Ethics and Confidentiality Committee and Research Ethics Committees |
| Q114971054 | The Ethics of Using the Internet to Collect Qualitative Research Data |
| Q114992160 | The Importance of Both Research and its Proper Review: A Historical Perspective |
| Q111892662 | The Lay Member in the Research Ethics Committee: A Reply to Green |
| Q111849129 | The Legal Research Committee: A Response to Roy-Toole |
| Q111849275 | The Membership and Function of the Research Ethics Committee |
| Q114971044 | The Open University: A Centralized Responsive Mode System |
| Q61675662 | The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials: A short report |
| Q61675691 | The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials: A short report |
| Q114971041 | The Problem of Proliferation: Guidelines for Improving the Security of Qualitative Data in a Digital Age |
| Q111892150 | The REC Indemnity: ‘Throwing the Kitchen Sink’ at the Committees? |
| Q111891684 | The Recruitment and Retention of Members of Black and other Ethnic Minority Groups to NHS Research Ethics Committees in the United Kingdom |
| Q111856708 | The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 1. The Rationale for Ethics Review of Research by Committee |
| Q111861449 | The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 2. Science and Society: The Scope of Ethics Review |
| Q111849311 | The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 3. Balancing Potential Social Benefits against Risks to Subjects |
| Q111893007 | The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 4. Limits to Consent? |
| Q111892432 | The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 5. Collective Decision-Making and Research Ethics Committees |
| Q111891863 | The Roles of Research Ethics Committees: Implications for Membership |
| Q111891163 | The University of Glamorgan: Embedding Ethics into the Committee Structure |
| Q114991968 | The case for ethics review in the social sciences: Drawing from practice at Queen Mary University of London |
| Q111891988 | The effect of study type on research ethics committees’ queries in medical studies |
| Q111891137 | The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee |
| Q114991979 | The problems of presumed isomorphism and the ethics review of social science: A response to Schrag |
| Q57281165 | The relational responsibilities of scientists: (Re) considering science as a practice |
| Q108863462 | The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data |
| Q111860446 | The value of sharing genomic findings with research ethics committees |
| Q111867381 | The ‘New Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees’: Policy-Shift and Equivocation on Matters of Illegal Research |
| Q111850016 | Tips for the Postgraduate Supervisor: Integrating Ethics with Research Supervision |
| Q111850772 | Trials and Treatments: Some Reflections on Informed Consent and the Role of Research Ethics Committees |
| Q111892935 | Trust trumps comprehension, visceral factors trump all: A psychological cascade constraining informed consent to clinical trials: A qualitative study with stable patients |
| Q114992014 | Two Models of Social Science Research Ethics Review |
| Q129125765 | Uncorking the bottleneck in gaining sponsorship for clinical research |
| Q111891316 | University Research Ethics Committees as learning communities: Identifying and utilising collaboratively produced knowledge in decision-making |
| Q111892144 | University Research Ethics Committees — A Summary of Research into Their Role, Remit and Conduct |
| Q114971034 | Using digital archives in historical research: What are the ethical concerns for a ‘forgotten’ individual? |
| Q114991873 | Using wearable cameras to investigate health-related daily life experiences: A literature review of precautions and risks in empirical studies |
| Q114991929 | Variation in university research ethics review: Reflections following an inter-university study in England |
| Q114991868 | WITHDRAWN—Administrative Duplicate Publication: Research ethics committees: The ineligibles |
| Q114971017 | Waving away waivers: an obligation to contribute to ‘herd knowledge’ for data linkage research? |
| Q114971026 | We are people and so are they: Shared intimacies and the ethics of digital ethnography in autism communities |
| Q125993218 | Web Alert |
| Q111892784 | Webnote: The Work of Phase I Ethics Committees: Expert and Lay Membership |
| Q111859304 | What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee |
| Q111894241 | What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? |
| Q126379695 | What constitutes expertise in research ethics and integrity? |
| Q126315399 | What do patients value as incentives for participation in clinical trials? A pilot discrete choice experiment |
| Q122602995 | When Things Go Wrong — Research Ethics in a Material World: A Personal View |
| Q114971046 | When to Delete Recorded Qualitative Research Data |
| Q130045046 | Who protects participants in non-inferiority trials when the outcome is death? |
| Q129670557 | ‘A commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’: a conceptual framework for equality of opportunity in Patient and Public Involvement in research |
| Q114971028 | ‘Google wants to know your location’: The ethical challenges of fieldwork in the digital age |
| Q108863413 | ‘Grey areas’: ethical challenges posed by social media-enabled recruitment and online data collection in cross-border, social science research |
| Q128670108 | ‘I should do what?’ Addressing research misconduct through values alignment |
| Q114992071 | ‘You Can't Stop Undergraduates Asking Silly Questions’: Academics' Views on Submission of Undergraduate Student Projects for Ethical Review |
Search more.