This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
The National Statement requires that HREC decisions be transparent, consistent, and promptly communicated (NS 5.1.26(e)). Consistency in decision-making supports procedural fairness and builds researcher confidence in the review system.
Decision rationale requirements
Where a Panel rejects, requests modification of, or withdraws approval for a proposal, it must provide the rationale for its decision, citing the National Statement provisions or Iris Ethics policies that underpin it (NS 5.2.7). Decisions should be reached by consensus where possible; where a decision is not unanimous, any dissent is recorded in the minutes, together with the reasons for the dissent if the dissenting member requests this (NS 5.2.8). Citing the specific National Statement paragraph relied on in each decision is what allows later panels, and the applicant, to see the reasoning and compare it with other decisions.
Achieving consistency
Consistency in decision-making is supported by:
- Clear, transparent and publicly available review criteria, applied uniformly across similar applications (NS 5.1.19)
- Documented reasons for decisions, citing National Statement paragraphs, enabling comparison across cases (NS 5.2.7)
- Discussion of borderline cases at Panel or committee level rather than by individual reviewers alone
- Regular review of patterns in decisions to identify inconsistencies
- Induction and ongoing training for members on the committee's review standards and approach (see Training requirements)
- A shared reference standard, such as this knowledge base, that reviewers and applicants can both consult
When precedent applies
Where the committee has previously approved a research design in a similar context, this creates a soft precedent. Departing from this precedent requires either a principled distinction between the cases or a committee decision to revise the standard. Reviewers who identify a potential inconsistency should raise it with the Chair rather than resolving it unilaterally.
Limits of consistency
Consistency does not require identical outcomes for superficially similar applications. Context matters: a research design that is appropriate in one population context may not be appropriate in another. The committee's task is to apply consistent principles, not to guarantee consistent outcomes.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.