Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

How-to guidelines for the prioritisation of reviews of research protocols during global crises: a framework for research ethics committees

Authors: Seedall, Carly Jean; Girkontaitė, Agnė; Lekstutiene, Jurate; Lukaseviciene, Vilma; Tambornino, Lisa; Aliukonis, Vygintas; Gefenas, Eugenijus;

How-to guidelines for the prioritisation of reviews of research protocols during global crises: a framework for research ethics committees

Abstract

During sudden, global crises, when confronted with limited resources and increasing workloads, research ethics committees (RECs) may want to or need to adjust the order in which they perform ethical reviews of research protocols. This guidance is designed to support RECs in addressing three key aspects related to the prioritisation of research protocols during global crises, drawing on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. First, it assists RECs in determining whether existing prioritisation systems require modification and explores the possible implications of such changes. Then, it details the structural and procedural arrangements necessary to implement new systems of prioritisation. Finally, it outlines the criteria RECs should consider if they choose to revise their prioritisation approach. These guidelines are informed by a global survey of RECs conducted between December 2024 and January 2025 as well as existing literature on research prioritisation during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gelinas et al., 2018; Jayaweera et al., 2021; Sisk & DuBois, 2020; Cornell, 2022; WHO, 2025; Meyer et al., 2021; Paleoudis et al., 2021). To facilitate practical application, reflection questions are included throughout the guidelines to help RECs critically assess their prioritisation processes and prepare for future crises. These questions are designed to encourage proactive planning and support RECs in balancing ethical considerations with operational challenges during global emergencies. This is a preprint and has not undergone a full academic peer review. It is shared to facilitate timely dissemination and feedback.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Biomedical Research/ethics, Interdisciplinary Research/ethics, Ethics, Research

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Funded by
Related to Research communities