Research ethics policies and procedures

The Worktribe ethics module is a research management system for the University

• As such, it is not one size fits all and does not capture some of the necessary project information the PHSS REC needs to fully consider/ understand proposals.
• To tailor Worktribe specifically to PHSS needs and to avoid needing to upload numerous appendices (protocol schematic, power calculations, recruitment materials etc.) our workaround has been to produce a single document that captures the required project details.

Applicants should now complete a MINIMAL Worktribe online form AND complete the SHS supplementary research ethics form which can then be uploaded into the documents tab of the  Worktribe application.

 The previous ‘Path A’ and ‘Path B’ application categories will now be replaced by a risk classification (low, medium and high risk), which is determined by the Research Ethics Framework and is triaged by the research ethics and governance team when you submit your application.

Low and medium risk applications will go through the interim review process and high risk applications going through full REC review process.

Routes to approval are determined by the responses given in the application form.   

‌For any queries related to applying for ethical review and approvals or the Research Ethics Committee, please contact Emily Ashenden or Rosy Armstrong using the generic admin mailbox: shs-ethics-admin@exeter.ac.uk.

Staff and PGR applications

Worktribe SHS supplementary research ethics form staff and PGR

Undergraduate and PGT applications

Undergraduate and PGT supplementary ethics form

• Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation
• Risk Assessments‌
• Research Data Management
• Substantial Amendment notification form
• Minor amendment notification form
• End of study declaration

Research Ethics and Governance SharePoint resources webpage

The current UoE templates for Participant Information Sheet and Consent Forms are on the Research Ethics and Governance pages.

Research Ethics and Governance - Home (sharepoint.com)

• St. Lukes Laboratories Standard Operating Procedure for Taking Informed Consent
• Human Tissue Act Compliance 

Complaints received from study participants should be dealt with according to the procedures outlined in the SHS Ethics Committee Policy on Complaints.

Procedures for recording and reporting adverse events such as injuries, or unexpected physical reactions following a particular procedure, are documented in  SHS Ethics Committee Policy on Adverse Events.

If you are a student and your query relates to your study you should contact your supervisor. 

For all other queries regarding the approval system, contact the SHS Ethics Administrators, Emily Ashenden and Rosy Armstrong at shs-ethics-admin@exeter.ac.uk.

Applications classified as ‘low-risk’ during the triage process are considered once a valid application has been received and allocated to reviewers. The anticipated time from allocation to a reviewer to a response is 2 weeks.

Applications classified as being high-risk during the triage process will be considered following the deadlines described above. Please remember that the ethics committee will have a large number of applications to review, and that if you submit after the deadline you may have to wait until the next meeting. Please take note of the deadlines and ensure you make your application in good time.

Applicants will be notified of the outcome of their application after it has been considered by the committee.

Note: The classification of studies as being low or high risk has replaced the previous classifications, ‘Path A and Path B’.

The risk assessments along with other related documents such as exercise screening forms can be found on the Sport and Health Sciences SharePoint site.

You can begin from the start date of your Certificate of Ethical Approval which will be provided by email from the Ethics Administrator.

It is not the role or responsibility of research ethics committees to give legal advice, nor are they liable for any of their decisions in this respect.  Irrespective of the decision of a research ethics committee on a particular application, it is the researcher and/or sponsor who has the responsibility not to break the law.