Ethics Review Boards (IRB)

Concept Definition

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a term rooted in United States federal regulation; globally the same body is known as a Research Ethics Committee (REC) or Ethics Advisory Board (EAB). These committees operate independently within universities, hospitals, and research centres. Their core function is to assess whether any research project involving human participants complies with ethical principles before the study begins. The board applies the principles of non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, and beneficence as its primary evaluative criteria.

Review Process and Types

The researcher submits an application package containing the study protocol, data-collection instruments, and consent forms. The board applies one of three review categories based on risk level. Exempt review applies to very low-risk studies, such as anonymous surveys with no personal identifiers. Expedited review covers research posing minimal risk that does not require a full board meeting. Full review involves all board members and is required when the study includes risky interventions, vulnerable populations, or sensitive data. Once approval is granted, the study must be conducted strictly according to the approved protocol.

Concrete Application Example

A psychologist plans to conduct semi-structured interviews with employees to measure the effect of occupational stress on decision-making. The researcher prepares a submission including the interview questions, an informed-consent form explaining participants' right to withdraw at any time, assurances of data anonymisation, and a data-storage plan. The board determines that the study poses minimal risk, applies expedited review, and grants approval with minor revisions requested. The researcher may not ask any question during interviews that is not covered by the approved protocol.

Common Pitfalls and Good Practice

The most frequent mistake is beginning data collection before obtaining ethical approval, which jeopardises publication and funding eligibility. A second common problem is writing consent forms in technical language that participants cannot genuinely understand, undermining the principle of informed consent. A third misconception is failing to notify the board when the approved protocol is later modified; any protocol change requires a fresh approval or amendment submission. For good practice, researchers should address ethics from the earliest design stage, write consent forms in plain language, and submit timely renewal applications for longitudinal studies.

Key terms

Informed Consent

A participant's voluntary agreement to join a study after receiving sufficient information about it.

Exempt Review

A review category for very low-risk research that does not require a full board meeting.

Expedited Review

Review of minimal-risk studies conducted by a limited subset of board members.

Full Board Review

A review requiring the full board for high-risk studies or research with vulnerable populations.

Protocol Amendment

Additional board approval required for any change made to an already-approved research protocol.