Abstract:Background: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principlesi to make decisions about whether prospective health and social care research is ethical. Close attention to understanding how reviewers go about their decision-making work and consider principles in practice is limited. Objective: The study aimed to understand how reviewers made decisions in the contexts of meetings and to understand more about how reviewers approach their work. The purpose of this article is to draw on data and findings and to show how reflective equilibrium as a theoretical frame can (1) deepen understanding of ethics review and (2) permit a reflexive examination of the habitual processes of review. Design and participants: Methods captured the day-to-day work of the RECs. Seventeen applications were heard during eight observations. There were 12 formal interviews with reviewers (n = 12) and with researchers (n = 8) which are not reported on in this article. Ethical considerations: Organisational permission for the study was given by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) whose functions became part of the Health Research Authority (HRA) during the study. The study was given favourable opinion by the University of Salford's REC (Reference HSCR11/17). Findings: Data were analysed using constructed grounded theory resulting in eight themes which revealed attention to procedure and engagement with applications. Reflective equilibrium was used as a qualitative frame to interpret themes distilling them into three processes at work in review: emotion and intuition; imagination and creative thinking; and intuition and trust. Discussion: Reviewers went back and forth between universal principles and considered these in the contexts of each application using the above processes. Conclusions: Reflective equilibrium offers a coherent and grounded account of review work. Reflexivity in training for reviewers is essential for improving practices. The challenges reflexivity presents can be assisted by using reflective equilibrium as a tool to illuminate tacit review processes.

Learnings From 1000 Rejections

Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection

How to handle a rejection. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed

As a reviewer, how do I decide between recommending rejection of a paper rather than a major revision?

Why did we reject your paper?

Navigating the disappointment of manuscript rejection: An author's dialogue with a reviewer and editor of tropical doctor (TD)

Exploring the Black Box of Journal Manuscript Review: A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors

Getting Your Scholarly Papers Published: A Guide on How to Avoid the Top Ten Most Common Causes of Paper Rejection

Letter to the editor: Against the Resilience of Rejected Manuscripts

Rejection, Rebuttal, Revision - Some Flexible Features of Peer-Review

Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Reputation, review, . . . and other stories

Knowledge behind the scenes of a peer-reviewed journal helps in publishing your manuscript

Ethics review, reflective equilibrium and reflexivity

The Importance and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Judging a book by its cover: how much of REF `research quality' is really `journal prestige'?

Comparing the Publication Process in Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, Marketing, Psychology, and the Natural Sciences