Failure to report and provide commentary on research ethics board approval and informed consent in medical journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Declaration of Helsinki prohibits the publication of articles that do not meet defined ethical standards for reporting of research ethics board (REB) approval and informed consent. Despite this prohibition and a call to highlight the deficiency for the reader, articles with potential ethical shortcomings continue to be published. OBJECTIVE: To determine what proportion of articles in major medical journals lack statements confirming REB approval and informed consent, and whether accompanying commentary alerts readers to this deficiency. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Online review of five major medical journals. POPULATION: All clinical research articles published online between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006 in the BMJ, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine. MEASUREMENTS: Statement of REB approval and informed consent. RESULTS: Of 1780 articles reviewed, 1133 (63.7%) met inclusion criteria (manuscripts reporting human subjects, human tissue or identifiable personal data research), 36 (3.2%) articles lacked a statement of REB approval, 62 (5.5%) lacked disclosure of informed consent and 15 (1.3%) articles lacked both. Articles that did not state REB approval were associated with not stating informed consent (p<0.001). There were no editorial comments to alert readers to the lack of either REB approval or informed consent statements associated with any of the deficient articles. CONCLUSIONS: Articles that lack explicit statements of REB approval and informed consent are infrequent but continue to be published in major medical journals without editorial statements to alert the reader to this deficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.190 | 0.787 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.089 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".