Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2025-2
Like Superman,Institutional Review Boards Play an Important Role,But When Unchecked Can Cause Significant Collateral Damage: Five Reasons That it is Time to Reset Institutional Review Boards
CooperJ. A.McNairL. (2015). Simplifying the complexity of confidentiality in research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(1), 100–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614568783
3.
Corbie-SmithG. (1999). The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis study: Considerations for clinical investigation. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 317(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-199901000-00002
FitchK. L. (2005). Difficult interactions between IRBs and investigators: Applications and solutions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500149486
6.
FriesenP.GelinasL.KirbyA.StraussD. H.BiererB. E. (2023). IRBs and the protection-inclusion dilemma: Finding a balance. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(6), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2063434
Huh-YooJ.RaderE. (2020). It’s the wild, wild west: Lessons learned from IRB members’ risk perceptions toward digital research data. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392868
Keith-SpiegelP.KoocherG. P. (2005). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit?Ethics and Behavior, 15(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1504_5
13.
KlitzmanR. L. (2013). How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(3), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.3.58
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
17.
MohammadJ.QuoquabF.IdrisF.Al JabariM.WishahR. (2019). The mediating role of overall fairness perception: A structural equation modelling assessment. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 41(3), 614–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2017-0243
MustanskiB. (2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with IGBT adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9745-1
20.
National Archives (2023). Title 45 - public welfare subtitle A - department of health and human services subchapter A - general administration part 46 - protection of human subjects subpart A - basic HHS policy for protection of human research subjects. Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.104
21.
NoeR. A.HollenbeckJ. R.GerhartB.WrightP. M. (2019). Fundamentals of human resource management (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
22.
ObenauerW. G. (2023). More on why Lakisha and Jamal didn’t get interviews: Extending previous findings through a reproducibility study. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(2), 114–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231167366
23.
ObenauerW. G.KalsherM. J. (2023). Is white always the standard? Using replication to revisit and extend what we know about the leadership prototype. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), 101633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101633
UbakaA.LuX.GutierrezL. (2023). Testing the generalizability of the white leadership standard in the post-Obama era. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), 101591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101591
ZimbardoP.HaneyC.BanksW. C.PhillipsS.GorchoffD.RosenfeldC.RossL.HaslachC.BurkhartC.JilliamsR.ZeissB.SparacoJ. (1971). The Stanford prison experiment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc.