Commentary on “Measuring the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards”
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12807166 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Cleaton‐Jones (University of the Witwatersrand, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 200-203 |
| Publication date | 2019-04-08 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1556-2646 • E-ISSN: 1556-2654 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1556264618812937 |
| PMID | 30957623 |
| OpenAlex | W2936348001 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 7 |
This commentary uses personal research ethics experience in South Africa to consider the position of Tsan who recommends a consortium to develop common metrics / performance indicators for determining quality of RECs / IRBs. Terms such as performance, quality and throughput need clarification in research metrics before effective metrics may be useful
Business · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Ethics committee · Management science · Political science · Position (finance · Quality (philosophy · Research ethics · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics in Clinical Research · Health and Medical Research Impacts · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Psychology · Public Administration
| Citations per year | 0.17 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2020 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |