Protecting human subjects: How much responsibility falls to editorial boards?

Abstract

Editorial policy for biomedical journals increasingly calls on authors to affirm that approval was received from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) (or equivalent) prior to initiating any human subjects research presented in a manuscript submitted for publication. For most investigations and investigators this does not present any problem. However, when research is carried out in a setting where there is no IRB, should editors consider a report of such a study based on the merits alone? There is no simple answer to this question. This commentary explores aspects of the question and presents issues to be considered in developing an answer. Am. J. Ind. Med. 52:172-175, 2009. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Editor's response to “Ethical issues associated with globalization of placebo-controlled trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension”

“…13 The TRUST study was performed with approval of the institutional review boards and under rigorous oversight by a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Indeed, as rules and regulations governing research have evolved and become more complex, the responsibility of editorial boards to critically examine the conduct of submitted trials and to publish only those that follow proper ethical guidelines has been justifiably emphasized.…”