Research ethics

Guide

On this page

The APA manual devotes the last part of chapter 1 to ethics, and organizes it around three goals: to ensure the accuracy of scientific findings, to protect the rights and welfare of research participants, and to protect intellectual property rights (APA, 2020, chapter 1, the introduction to sections 1.11-1.25). The guidelines there derive from the APA ethics code (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct; APA, 2017a, as cited in APA, 2020 – the code itself is available free on the APA website), and so they are not only publication rules: they begin with the planning of the study, long before the manuscript. This page follows those sections, in the order of a study – before, during, after – and adds three chapters from the Cambridge handbook of research methods in the social and behavioral sciences (Nichols & Edlund, 2023): the principles behind the rules and codes (Ferrero & Pinto, 2023), informed consent – what must be in it and how to make sure the participant really understood (Festinger et al., 2023), and the debriefing at the end of the study (Clark & Blackhart, 2023) – as well as what Field (2024, chapter 3) writes about the other side of "accuracy of findings": publication bias, researcher degrees of freedom, p-hacking and preregistration. And at the end – the Israeli framework: the Privacy Protection Law as worded in Amendment 13, the ethics committee procedures of the institutions, and the Ministry of Education procedure for research in schools (section 11).

1. The principles and codes – where the rules come from

The rules were not born in a committee. Ferrero and Pinto (2023) open with the history: modern research ethics and institutional ethics committees grew out of what was revealed at the Nuremberg trials – the Declaration of Geneva (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) – and out of a series of experiments on human beings in the United States in the sixties and seventies, conducted without the participants' knowledge and without their consent: the Tuskegee syphilis study, the Stanford prison experiment, the Milgram experiment and others, which showed "how far human dignity and rights can be violated in the name of research". Hence the Belmont Report (1979) and its three principles, as Festinger and colleagues (2023) summarize them: respect for persons – recognition of the autonomy and dignity of every person, and protection of those whose autonomy is limited (children, people with cognitive impairment); beneficence – protecting from harm, maximizing benefit and minimizing risk; justice – a fair distribution of the benefits and the burdens of research. And from them – a host of codes: the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, the European Code, the APA ethics code, and in the UK the five principles of the Academy of Social Sciences (2014) – the social sciences are essential to a democratic society; they respect the privacy, autonomy, diversity and dignity of individuals, groups and communities; they are conducted with integrity and with appropriate methods; with social responsibility; and they aim to maximize benefit and minimize harm (Ferrero & Pinto, 2023).

But "research ethics cannot be reduced to a list of standards" – it also requires principles. Ferrero and Pinto place integrity (integrity) at the center – consistency between the technical and ethical principles and practice – and alongside it six values: honesty (disclosure of the methods, procedures and findings, transparently and without deception, while keeping participants' confidentiality); objectivity (conclusions from a critical analysis of the evidence, and not selection methods designed to produce a misleading result – not even at the funder's wish; conflicts of interest are disclosed immediately); accountability (being able to justify that you acted honestly – and therefore keeping full documentation of the study so that others can verify and replicate it; the senior researcher is also responsible for data collected by junior staff); authenticity (an objective and rigorous presentation of the findings – the three forms of violation: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); compliance (with the laws, codes and regulations of the country in which the study is conducted – and reporting suspected violations by others); and care (care) – which in the social sciences is not self-evident: a survey too can harm a participant, publishing findings too can attach a stigma to a community, an ethnic group or the poor, and anyone who collects information about violence, drugs or mental distress must make sure that a participant who needs help receives information about it and access to it (Ferrero & Pinto, 2023). These principles are what the following sections spell out.

2. Before you start: planning for compliance

Attention to ethics begins "long before" a manuscript is submitted: at the planning stage, institutional approval, informed consent, deception in research, participant protections and data sharing are considered. Before the study begins, contact the ethics committee (IRB) of the institution or country to find out which studies require approval and what the procedures are – and someone who does not belong to a university, a hospital or another institution with such a committee is still expected to comply with the same rules, and to turn to an external committee if needed (APA, 2020, Section 1.11). The approvals obtained are reported in the body of the article, in the method section, and prepare for questions from editors and reviewers about consent, debriefing and confidentiality; before submission, go through the checklist (APA, 2020, sections 1.11 and 1.25 – given below). Many journals require authors to complete a form confirming compliance with ethical rules and disclosing conflicts of interest. In Israel: the institution's ethics committee, the Helsinki committee for medical research, and the permit of the Office of the Chief Scientist for research in the education system – section 11.

What this means for someone planning a questionnaire: the ethical decisions are part of questionnaire construction – what is asked, how the participant is told what will be done with their answers, and how they are identified (see sections 4 and 6). And for the pilot, Pallant (2020, chapter 1) adds one goal to the list: to identify questions that could hurt respondents.

3. Participants' rights and welfare

The APA ethics code (sections 3 and 8 of the code) sets out the rules for research with human participants, and the manual summarizes what is required of the researcher (APA, 2020, Section 1.18):

Informed consent – obtain consent, a minor's assent (assent) or permission, as appropriate, in language the participants can reasonably understand. Minimizing harm – avoid exposing participants, or minimize their exposure, to physical, emotional or psychological harm; to exploitative relationships; to undue influence arising from the researcher's status, power or authority; to excessive or inappropriate incentives for participation; and to deception or debriefing (debriefing) that is unjustified or unjustifiably delayed. Protecting the data – take appropriate measures to prevent unauthorized access to participants' data or its release to the public or to other researchers not specified in the informed consent – for example through a written data-sharing agreement made in advance. APA members are required to confirm that they complied with the rules as a condition of publication; the manual recommends that all authors include in the text a statement that the study was conducted in accordance with ethical and institutional guidelines – and if participants agreed to have their identifying details published, to state this in the method section. Failure to comply with the rules is grounds for rejecting a manuscript or retracting a published article (APA, 2020, Section 1.18).

Consent is given to specific researchers. A point the manual raises in the context of qualitative research, but true of any research in a community: participants may give their consent to a particular group of researchers and not extend it to other researchers – and this is especially sensitive in vulnerable populations. Researchers sometimes invest years in building the trust needed to collect data from a community, and community members will not necessarily extend the same trust to another group; communities may own the data or co-own it, and may refuse to share it (APA, 2020, Section 1.15). Therefore what the participant was told in the consent – who will see the data, for what purpose – is the limit of what may be done with it afterwards (section 8).

Paying participants. Payment improves recruitment and removes barriers – and diversifies the sample – but raises two concerns: bias (does a paid participant answer differently? the sample would also include people who would not have come without money) and coercion. Ferrero and Pinto (2023) present the proposal to think about payment in three parts: justification (what is being paid for – time, travel, discomfort, risk), formula (cash, hourly, a benefit, reimbursement of expenses with a cap) and restrictions (who is eligible, on what condition); and the warning that an incentive to people in economic distress, or to the researcher's own students, may empty the consent of its content. Festinger and colleagues (2023) distinguish: coercion is a threat – explicit or implied – by a person in authority; undue influence is an offer of such high value that it impairs the ability to refuse – and the same amount can be fair in an affluent sample and unfair in a poor one. And both risks can also be merely perceived: participants report pressure even when none was applied to them.

4. Informed consent – what must be in it, and how to make sure it was understood

"The cornerstone of ethical research with human participants" – and a process, not a one-time event: the researcher makes sure the participant understood, invites questions, discloses new information that arises during the study, and asks for consent again when needed (Festinger et al., 2023). Three conditions: capacity (intelligence) – the cognitive competence to make an informed decision; knowingness (knowingness) – full understanding of the information and its implications; voluntariness (voluntariness) – a decision without coercion and without undue influence. Those who cannot consent for themselves – children, people with cognitive impairment – are not excluded from research: excluding them is itself discrimination, because the policy toward them depends on research about them; consent is given by a parent or guardian, and in addition the child is asked for their own agreement (assent) – an explicit, affirmative agreement, according to their age, maturity and ability (Ferrero & Pinto, 2023; Festinger et al., 2023). The rules for minors differ from country to country, so check the law in the place where the study is conducted.

What must be in the form. Festinger and colleagues (2023) present the nine elements that the American "Common Rule" requires in every consent – and they are a good checklist for any form, also outside the United States: (1) a statement that this is research, and a description of the procedures, the purpose, the duration of participation and any experimental procedure; (2) the foreseeable risks and discomforts – physical, psychological and social; (3) the expected benefits to the participant or to others; (4) (treatment) alternatives that might be beneficial; (5) the extent to which the confidentiality of records will be maintained, and who will access the information; (6) compensation and treatment for injury, when the risk is greater than minimal; (7) whom to contact with questions about the study, about rights and about complaints; (8) that participation is voluntary, and that refusal or withdrawal will not involve a penalty or loss of entitlement; (9) if identifying information is collected – whether it will be used for future research. And six requirements about the process: consent before participation; sufficient opportunity to consider, under conditions that minimize coercion; understandable language; the information a reasonable person would need in order to decide; a concise opening with the most important information; and no wording that waives legal rights. In minimal-risk research – risk like that of everyday life – the ethics committee may waive the signature or some of the elements.

Did they really understand? The empirical research on informed consent, Festinger and colleagues (2023) summarize, shows that standard procedures do not ensure understanding – participants do not understand or do not remember the procedures, the risks and the protections, especially in vulnerable populations. What does work: a shorter form in plain language (about 21% of adults in the United States have marginal literacy); a large font, spacing, short sentences, diagrams and bullet points; and above all corrective feedback – checking what the participant understood after reading the form, and correcting every wrong answer together with them – the method with the most empirical support, which improves both initial understanding and recall over time; a consent quiz (consent quiz) identifies what needs clarification, although it tests recognition rather than recall. There are tools for assessing voluntariness (for example the coercion assessment scale – "I felt I was talked into entering the study", "I entered mainly for financial reasons") – and any answer that suggests pressure is discussed with the participant. In an online questionnaire, where there is no researcher facing the participant, the first sentence of the form – the short, clear one – is all there is; the questionnaire construction page begins with it.

5. Debriefing – what to do before the participant leaves

"The steps after the end of the study are no less important than those before and during it" (Clark & Blackhart, 2023). Debriefing (debriefing) is an ethical obligation: it is a learning experience for the participant and strengthens their trust in science – and in a study that used deception, or withheld information, it is essential in two senses: removing the deception (dehoaxing) – disclosing the true purpose and any deception that was used – and reassurance (desensitization) – minimizing negative feelings the study aroused, whether intentionally (failure feedback, exclusion) or because of the deception (shame, embarrassment), including in someone who performed an ethically problematic act in the study. According to the APA ethics code (standards 8.07-8.08, as cited in Clark and Blackhart), participants must learn the truth about any deception as early as possible – preferably in the debriefing. Debriefing also serves the research: it reveals whether participants guessed the hypothesis (demand characteristics), makes it possible to assure them that their behavior stemmed from the experimental situation and does not reflect on them, and exposes flaws – noise from the next room, a page that is hard to read – that turned into confounding variables. And this is the moment to ask the participant not to tell future participants: on a campus, details of a study "spread like wildfire". Clark and Blackhart's first recommendation to researchers is to report the debriefing procedure in the article – most studies do not – and to test empirically whether it achieved its goal, especially after a hurtful experience; and in an ordinary questionnaire, without deception, the core remains: an explanation of the purpose of the study, thanks, and whom to contact – and if they were asked about distress, violence or drugs, also information about help (Ferrero & Pinto, 2023).

6. Confidentiality and de-identification

When describing research, "confidential, personally identifiable information" about clients, students, participants or organizations may not be disclosed – unless they have given documented consent to disclosure of their identity (APA, 2020, section 1.19, quoting standard 4.07 of the code). In a case study, where confidentiality is especially difficult, the manual lists four disguise strategies – altering certain characteristics, limiting their description, obfuscation through extraneous details, and composite descriptions (composite) – and adds two caveats: the disguise must not alter variables in a way that would lead readers to false conclusions, and a report that cannot adequately disguise identifying information should not be submitted for publication; "confidentiality is never sacrificed for clinical or scientific accuracy" and vice versa (APA, 2020, Section 1.19). The researcher also guards against exploitation: the consent of a client, employee or student whom the researcher supervises is not free consent (standards 3.05 and 3.08 of the code, as cited there).

De-identifying data. Before sharing or publishing data, remove all personally identifiable information – and any code that makes it possible to restore the link to the participant's identity. And not only name and ID number: a unique combination of demographic details or of other public information can identify a person, and this too must be guarded against (APA, 2020, section 1.14, "Conditions and exceptions to data sharing"; for health data the manual refers to the HIPAA guidelines and to the GDPR). In the site's file this translates into a simple rule: the "id" column in the standard template is a serial number, not a name and not an ID number; the key that links a number to a person – if there is one at all – is kept separately from the data file, and is not uploaded anywhere. (The calculators themselves run in the browser only, and the data are not sent to any server.) In Israel this is also a legal question: a file with identified participants is a "database" under the Privacy Protection Law – section 11.

7. Accuracy of findings – what is forbidden, and what makes reporting complete

"The essence of ethics in all scientific reporting is that authors report the methods and results of their studies fully and accurately" (APA, 2020, Section 1.12). The prohibitions: do not fabricate or falsify data (standard 8.10a); do not alter results – including images – to support a theory; and do not omit "troublesome observations" in order to tell a more compelling story (standard 5.01b). This omission, the manual specifies, takes three forms: selective non-reporting of studies – methodologically sound and relevant – whose results do not support the preferred narrative; selective omission of manipulations, procedures, measures or findings within a study; and selective exclusion of participants or observations, without a valid methodological reason, in order to reach the desired result. And another violation "of basic ethical principles": presenting a hypothesis born from the data (post hoc) as if it had been planned in advance. The APA reporting standards therefore require describing all the variables that were measured, tracking the flow of participants through the study so that no one leaves without being mentioned, and presenting the hypotheses in three groups – primary planned, secondary planned, and exploratory (exploratory): exploratory hypotheses are permitted, "and there should be no pressure to disguise them as planned" (APA, 2020, Section 1.12).

Ferrero and Pinto (2023) define the three forms of violating authenticity: fabrication – inventing data or results presented as real, "almost always intentional and fraudulent" – and a claim based on partial or estimated results is also fabrication; falsification – manipulation, negligent or fraudulent, of existing data in order to reach the expected result, including altering or omitting results; and plagiarism (section 10). And on the positive side – accountability: keeping full documentation of the study, so that others can verify and replicate it. Field (2024, chapter 3) explains why these rules are needed, and what stands against them. A significant finding is about seven times more likely to be published than a non-significant one (Coursol & Wagner, 1986, as cited in Field), and in psychology more than 90% of articles report significant results (Fanelli, 2010, 2012, as cited in Field) – this is publication bias, and it stems both from editors and reviewers who reject non-significant results and from researchers who do not submit them (Field, 2024, Section 3.3.1). Incentive structures – jobs, funding, tenure – reward "successful research", and successful means significant, hence the pressure. The two ways in which researchers add to the bias: selective reporting of significant findings, and exploiting "researcher degrees of freedom" (Field, 2024, Section 3.3.2). p-hacking is the umbrella term: running several analyses and reporting only the significant one; stopping data collection at a point that is not the sample size set in advance; including or excluding data and variables according to their effect on p; measuring several outcomes and reporting only those in which the effect is significant; merging groups or transforming scores until a p smaller than .05 is obtained. HARKing – presenting a hypothesis formulated after data collection as if it preceded it (Field, 2024, Section 3.3.3) – is exactly what APA prohibits in section 1.12. The fourth of the ASA's six principles on p-values, as Field presents them: p-values must not be reported selectively – conducting multiple analyses and reporting only those that passed a threshold renders the reported p-values "essentially uninterpretable"; be transparent about the number of hypotheses tested and all data collection and analysis decisions (Field, 2024, Section 3.5). And the practical safeguard: preregistration – publishing the rationale, hypotheses, design, data processing strategy and analysis strategy before data collection begins, in a registered report in a journal or informally on a public website such as the Open Science Framework (Field, 2024, Section 3.6). More on this – on the research question and hypotheses page, section 4.

And what the site does with this. The calculators report everything that was selected – every pair of variables in the correlation matrix, every dependent variable in a test, with a confidence interval and an effect size even when the result is not significant – and the Word file you download is a record of what was run, including the source line (the file name, the number of participants, the variables). It is not a substitute for preregistration; it turns what was actually run into something that can be shown.

8. Data retention and sharing

Retention. Authors are expected to retain the data of a published article in accordance with the requirements of the institution, the funding body, the agreements with participants and the ethics code (standard 8.14). The manual encourages deciding already at the planning stage, before data collection, how the data will be retained and how they will be shared, writing this into the protocol submitted to the ethics committee, and describing to participants during informed consent which data will be collected, retained and shared – and obtaining their approval (APA, 2020, Section 1.14).

Sharing. The code prohibits, in most circumstances, withholding data from competent requesters who wish to verify the findings through reanalysis – as long as participants' confidentiality is protected; the requester may be required to bear the costs. During peer review, authors are expected to share data, analyses and materials if questions arise about the accuracy of the report – and an editor may decline publication if they refuse; students should expect to be asked to hand over raw data to the faculty examining their thesis, and refusal may end in a failing grade. After publication – make the data available to "qualified professionals" (those accountable to a research institution or an educational employer and with the training to understand the research) within the retention period, for verifying the analyses or testing alternative analyses; for other uses – a written agreement on the terms of sharing: for what the data may be used, who will access them, how they will be stored and destroyed, and what about the authorship of publications based on them. Open sharing – publishing the data online with a permanent link in the article and an entry in the reference list – is increasingly required by funding bodies (APA, 2020, Section 1.14). The exceptions: identifying information (section 3), proprietary arrangements (data provided in confidence by a business, a commercial scale), and in qualitative research – the limits of confidentiality, of consent given to specific researchers, and of the researcher's perspective as part of the analytic instrument (APA, 2020, Section 1.15).

And what makes sharing possible at all: a file someone else can read. The legend sheet of the standard template – name, description, type, coding and notes for every variable – is exactly the codebook the data requester needs, and the From SPSS to Excel page produces it from an SPSS file together with the data view.

9. Errors after publication

An error substantial enough to affect the understanding of the study or the interpretation of the results – the authors are responsible for publishing it: they notify the editor and the publisher, and a correction notice (erratum) is published and attached to the article's record in the databases. When the problem is serious – plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, or a computational or measurement error discovered late that changes the interpretation of the findings – the article is retracted (retraction) by the authors, their institution or the publisher, in order to remove the information from the literature and not waste the time of scientists who would rely on it; a retracted article is not cited unless the citation is essential, and then the reference notes that it was retracted (APA, 2020, Section 1.13).

10. Publication: duplication, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, authorship

Duplicate and piecemeal publication. Duplicate publication is the publication of the same data or ideas in two separate works; piecemeal publication – the unnecessary splitting of the findings of one research effort into several works. Both misrepresent the amount of original research, and duplicate publication also creates the false impression that findings have been replicated more often than they really have (standard 8.13). The rule also applies to translation: a study may not be published in one language and then translated and published again. The exceptions: abstracts (conferences), limited-circulation publication – a departmental report, a government report, a doctoral dissertation – which can be published again in a journal; reanalysis of published data in light of new theories or methods, if it is marked as such and adds insight; and follow-up studies. In any case of doubt – ask the editor, and declare whether the manuscript has been posted online (APA, 2020, Section 1.16).

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Plagiarism is presenting the words, ideas or images of another as your own – whether deliberate or inadvertent, it is a violation of the ethical rules (standard 8.11), which ends in rejection from publication, in professional and institutional sanctions, and for students – in a failing grade, a disciplinary committee, suspension or expulsion. Self-plagiarism – presenting your own previous work as new – misleads readers and inflates the number of publications, and is just as unethical (APA, 2020, section 1.17; the citation rules – ibid., chapter 8). The site rule: every claim on the guide pages is attributed to its source by section and page, and what belongs to the site is marked as such.

Conflicts of interest. The code (standard 3.06) defines it broadly – "personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other" interests or relationships that could impair objectivity or harm those with whom the researcher works. The safest and most transparent course: disclose in the author note any activities or relationships that, if known to others, might be seen as a conflict of interest – even when the author does not believe there is any bias. Salaries, research grants, consulting fees and personal stock holdings are disclosed; holdings in a company through a mutual fund usually are not. Disclosure is also required for an interest that could bias against a competing product or tool – for example rights to a competing psychological test (APA, 2020, Section 1.20). And for those who work with clients, like a research institute: funding of the research by the body being studied is exactly the interest that is disclosed.

Authorship. Authorship is reserved for those who made a substantial contribution to the work and accept responsibility for it (standard 8.12a): formulating the problem or hypothesis, constructing the design, organizing and conducting the analysis, interpreting the findings. Smaller contributions – building apparatus, advising on the analysis, collecting and entering the data, recruiting participants – are acknowledged in the author note, although a combination of several of them may justify authorship. The division is determined "as early as possible" – which tasks are required, how they will be divided, what merits authorship and in what order – and is reassessed if contributions change, especially in faculty-student collaboration (APA, 2020, Section 1.21). The order reflects relative contribution, and "relative status" – department head, junior faculty member, student – does not determine it (standard 8.12b); a doctoral student is the principal author of articles based primarily on the dissertation, except in rare cases (8.12c); for a master's thesis – according to actual contribution, and when the student made the main contribution, the student is first; and in a group assignment submitted to an instructor and not for publication – any order (APA, 2020, Section 1.22).

11. The Israeli framework – the law, ethics committees and research in schools

The rules in sections 1-10 are professional codes. In Israel three binding layers apply on top of them: the Privacy Protection Law, which applies to anyone who collects personal information – including an independent researcher; the procedures of the ethics committees of the institutions; and the Ministry of Education procedure for research in schools. This is the "compliance" of Ferrero and Pinto (2023) – "with the laws, codes and regulations of the country in which the study is conducted" (section 1).

The Privacy Protection Law after Amendment 13. The amendment was published on August 14, 2024 and came into force "one year from the day of its publication" – August 14, 2025 (Privacy Protection Law (Amendment No. 13), 2024, section 74(a)). Four things in it bear directly on a researcher who administers a questionnaire:

(1) What counts as personal information. "Data relating to an identified person or to an identifiable person", and an identifiable person is "one who can be identified with reasonable effort, directly or indirectly" – including by means of "one or more data items relating to their physical, health, economic, social or cultural condition" (section 3 of the law, as worded in Amendment 13). This is what APA (2020, section 1.14) says about a combination of demographic details (section 6), and in Israel it is the law. A "database" is "a collection of personal information items processed by digital means" (ibid.; except a collection for personal use that is not for business purposes, and a list of only names and contact details of up to 100,000 people). That is, an Excel or SPSS file in which participants can be identified is a database. And what if the identifier is a serial number? The site's reading (not case law): a serial number protects participants from whoever receives the file. But as long as the key is kept by the researcher, the researcher herself can identify them with reasonable effort. Therefore such a file is not anonymous from the researcher's point of view, and the obligations below apply to it.

(2) Information of special sensitivity. A closed list of twelve types (section 3, as worded in Amendment 13), and social-science questionnaires routinely collect many of them: the privacy of family life and "sexual orientation" (paragraph 1); health status (2); "a person's origin" (5); criminal record (6); "a person's political opinions or religious beliefs or worldview" (7); salary data and financial activity (10). And paragraph 8 bears directly on psychology: a personality assessment conducted "by means intended for assessing essential personality characteristics, including character traits, intellectual ability and ability to function at work or in studies". A survey of political attitudes with questions on religion and origin, or an identified personality questionnaire – these are databases of information of special sensitivity.

(3) Registration and notification – usually not. The registration requirement was narrowed to two types of databases: a database whose main purpose is collecting personal information "for the purpose of transferring it to another as a business or for consideration", with information on more than 10,000 people; and a database of a public body as defined in paragraph (1) of the definition in section 23. Another database, containing information of special sensitivity on more than 100,000 people, requires notification to the Privacy Protection Authority within 30 days (section 8A, as worded in Amendment 13). A survey of a few hundred or a few thousand participants does not reach any of the thresholds. What applies to it in any case is the duty of notice to the participant.

(4) The duty of notice – the questionnaire's opening page. When a person is approached in order to obtain personal information from them for processing in a database, the approach "shall be accompanied by a notice" stating: (1) whether they are under a legal obligation to provide the information, or whether providing the information "depends on their will and consent", and what "the consequence of non-consent" is; (2) the purpose for which the information is requested; (2a) the name of the database controller and how to contact them; (3) to whom the information will be transferred and the purposes of the transfer; (4) the existence of the right to inspect the information (section 13) and of the right to request its correction (section 14) (section 11 of the law; paragraphs 2a and 4 and the addition to paragraph 1 – from Amendment 13). "Consent" in the law is "informed consent, express or implied" (section 3). Most of the items are already in the nine elements of informed consent (section 4). What to check separately: the researcher's name and contact details, to whom the information will be transferred, and the rights of inspection and correction. Anyone who did not give such a notice, and did not correct this within 30 days of the participant's request, is exposed to damages "not dependent on harm" of up to 10,000 shekels (section 15A(a)(2), added in Amendment 13).

And what the law does not say. The word "research" does not appear in Amendment 13, nor in the consolidated version of the law read here. There is no separate track for researchers in the law and no exemption for research, and a research file is subject to the same rules as any other database. Information security too is governed by regulations that the law refers to (sections 17(b) and 36), and these were not read here in the original. The practical guidelines are set out, for example, by the Open University (n.d.): collect only the information that is needed; remove or replace any identifying information; and if the data are identifying – "encryption, strong passwords and secure storage systems should be used"; and also "a policy should be set regarding when the information will be deleted".

Ethics committees. Medical research with human participants requires the approval of the Helsinki committee of a medical institution, under the Public Health Regulations (Medical Experiments in Human Subjects), 1980. The regulations were not read here in the original – they are given as the Hebrew University procedure quotes them (2022, section 3.3.1). Social-science research goes through the institution's ethics committee, according to its procedure. The Hebrew University procedure (updated in November 2022) is a good example:

The duty to submit. All research with human participants, with material originating from human beings or with information originating from them "shall be submitted for review by the faculty ethics committee before it is carried out" (section 3.1).

Three tracks. Full, abbreviated and expedited review (section 3.6). Surveys and interviews whose risk does not exceed minimal are suitable for the abbreviated track, according to a list based on the American Common Rule (appendix 2).

What is outside the committee's authority. Exercises in teaching and in learning research methods (section 3.12.1). Also, "evaluation research does not require prior approval of a research ethics committee" – but only when it is not intended for academic publication (section 1.9).

Waiving written consent. Possible in anonymous research, or when the consent form is the only identifier and the main risk is a breach of confidentiality (appendix 4, section 7.1).

Minors. "In research involving minimal risk, the consent of a single legal representative shall suffice"; above minimal risk – the consent of all legal representatives. The consent of the minor themself may also be requested, and when they reach age 18 they are asked for consent again (appendix 4, sections 1.6.1-1.6.4).

And an independent researcher? APA (2020, section 1.11) expects them to comply with the same rules and to turn to an external committee if needed (section 2). The Open University procedure states: "General or personal information for research may not be collected without explicit approval from the ethics committee" (Open University, n.d., principle 9).

Research in schools and kindergartens. Director-General's Circular 3/Tashpab (January 13, 2022; standing order 0281) states that "any conduct of research as defined in section 2 of this procedure requires a permit from the Office of the Chief Scientist" (section 3.4.1). The application is submitted in an online system, and routed to a "red" track (detailed review) or a "green" track (expedited) according to the degree of sensitivity (section 4.2.1). An internal inquiry by the institution's staff is not included (section 3.2.1). The consent rules:

Written consent. Written informed consent from the parents is required in the cases the procedure lists – among them collecting identifying information and individual activity with a pupil (section 3.5.2).

Passive consent. In the other cases, "parents who object to the inclusion of their child in the research" fill in a refusal form and hand it to the school administration (section 3.5.5).

The pupil's consent. "Obtaining the consent of a pupil participant is required even in cases where the consent of their parents has been obtained" (section 3.4.10).

Publication. "Publication of the information collected in a manner that identifies the participant or enables their identification shall not be permitted" (section 3.4.18).

The university procedure and the Ministry of Education circular – both and. The two sources are not identical: at the Hebrew University, in minimal-risk research, the consent of one parent suffices; in a school, some studies work by the opt-out method, and some require written consent. A student who administers a questionnaire in a school is subject to both. The site convention: in every item, follow the stricter of the two, and report both approvals in the method section.

Common mistakes

"I'm not at a university, so I don't have an ethics committee." The rules apply; turn to an external committee (APA, 2020, Section 1.11).

Asking in the consent "Do you agree to participate" without saying what will be done with the data. The consent must include what is collected, what is retained and with whom it will be shared – and it is the limit of use afterwards (APA, 2020, Sections 1.14 and 1.18).

Removing names and thinking the file is anonymous. A combination of locality, age, occupation and marital status identifies a person (APA, 2020, Section 1.14).

Removing "outliers" because they spoil the result. Removing observations without a valid methodological reason is selective omission (APA, 2020, Section 1.12); what does count as a reason – on the missing values page and on the outliers and assumptions page.

Reporting only the variables that came out significant. p-hacking (Field, 2024, Section 3.3.3); report everything that was measured (APA, 2020, Section 1.12).

Writing the hypothesis after seeing the results. HARKing (Field, 2024, Section 3.3.3) – an exploratory hypothesis is reported as exploratory (APA, 2020, Section 1.12).

Translating a published article and publishing it again. Duplicate publication (APA, 2020, Section 1.16).

Settling for a signature on a form. Consent is understanding – a short form, questions, and corrective feedback (Festinger et al., 2023).

Sending the participant home without a debriefing. Even without deception – purpose, thanks, whom to contact; and after deception – removing it and reassurance (Clark & Blackhart, 2023).

Setting the author order by status. By contribution; the student is first on their own dissertation (APA, 2020, Section 1.22).

"The questionnaire is anonymous, so the law does not apply". If there is a serial number and a key, or a combination of demographic details that identifies a person "with reasonable effort" – this is personal information, and the opening page needs the notice under section 11 of the Privacy Protection Law (section 11 here).

Checklist – before submission (eight of the nine questions of APA, 2020, section 1.25 – without the question on animals – and seven of the site's)

References

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (2022). Procedure for ethics in research with/on human participants [Updated November 2022]. https://research.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/mop/files/research_procedure_human_research_at_the_hebrew_university1.pdf

Open University of Israel. (n.d.). Guidelines on the protection of personal information in research. https://www.openu.ac.il/Lists/MediaServer_Documents/research/HANHAYOT_MIDA_ISHI_MEHKAR.pdf

Privacy Protection Law, 1981, Sefer HaHukim (Book of Laws), 128.

Privacy Protection Law (Amendment No. 13), 2024, Sefer HaHukim 3287, 1430. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/legalinfo/standards_law/he/laws_standards-law_law3287.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2022). Procedures for conducting research in the education system (Director-General's Circular 3/Tashpab, standing order 0281).

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Clark, T. D., & Blackhart, G. (2023). Debriefing and post-experimental procedures. In A. L. Nichols & J. E. Edlund (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of research methods and statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: Vol. 1. Building a program of research (pp. 244-266). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.013

Ferrero, I., & Pinto, J. (2023). Research ethics for the social and behavioral sciences. In A. L. Nichols & J. E. Edlund (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of research methods and statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: Vol. 1. Building a program of research (pp. 25-46). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.003

Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Callahan, H. R., & Hough, R. A. (2023). Informed consent to research. In A. L. Nichols & J. E. Edlund (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of research methods and statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: Vol. 1. Building a program of research (pp. 202-223). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.011

Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge.

The three chapters from the Cambridge handbook were read in full from the first volume (Nichols & Edlund, 2023, a print-replica digital copy with page numbers) – cited by chapter; the Belmont Report (1979), the American "Common Rule", the Helsinki and Singapore declarations, the five principles of the Academy of Social Sciences (Dingwall et al., 2017), Grady (2005) and Dickert and colleagues (2002) – as cited in these chapters. The APA ethics code (Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct; APA, 2017a) and its standards (3.05, 3.06, 3.08, 4.07, 5.01, 8.10-8.14) – as cited in APA (2020, chapter 1); Coursol and Wagner (1986), Fanelli (2010, 2012), Simonsohn and colleagues (2014), Kerr (1998) and the ASA (Wasserstein, 2016) – as cited in Field (2024). Per the site rule, the reference list includes only sources that were read in the original: the APA manual (2020) and Field (2024) in a reflowable digital copy – cited by section; Pallant (2020) – by chapter. The Israeli framework (section 11): Amendment 13 was read in full in Sefer HaHukim 3287 (from the Ministry of Justice website). The wording of the sections the amendment did not replace – section 11 and the definition of "consent" – was read in the consolidated, non-final version that the Knesset published ahead of the votes on the amendment, and the changes in it were cross-checked against Sefer HaHukim. The Hebrew University procedure, the Open University guidelines and the Director-General's circular were read in the original. The Public Health Regulations (Medical Experiments in Human Subjects), 1980 – as cited in the Hebrew University procedure; the data security regulations were not read. This section is not legal advice.