Skip to Content

HREC decision-making framework

OverviewAssessing research proposalsTypes of decisionsConsistency and transparency

This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.

Overview

The decision-making framework applied by the Iris Ethics HREC is grounded in the principles of the National Statement: research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence, and respect (NS Chapter 1). All review decisions must be defensible by reference to these values and to the specific requirements of the National Statement.

Assessing research proposals

In reviewing a proposal, the HREC considers:

  • Whether the research is consistent with the principles of the National Statement (NS 1)
  • Whether the risks and burdens of the research are justified by potential benefits (NS 2.1.1)
  • Whether participant recruitment is fair and consent processes are adequate (NS 2.2; NS 3.1)
  • Whether data management, privacy, and confidentiality are appropriately addressed (NS 3.1, Elements 3 and 4)
  • Whether any special considerations apply given the population, context, or techniques involved (NS 4)

Types of decisions

The HREC may, consistent with NS 5.2.7 and Iris Ethics' operating procedures:

  • Accept without amendment
  • Accept with amendments already received during the meeting
  • Grant provisional acceptance (acceptance subject to provision of further information and amendments in response to the recommendations of the Panel)
  • Decline to accept with recommendations (with a requirement for a new application to be submitted taking into account these recommendations)
  • Decline to accept without recommendations

In all cases, a rationale for the decision and any recommendations is provided with reference to the relevant provisions of the National Statement and, where relevant, Iris Ethics policies.

Consistency and transparency

Decisions must be transparent and consistent across similar proposals (NS 5.1.26(e)). The HREC documents its reasoning in meeting minutes, particularly for non-approval decisions. Applicants must be informed of the reasons for any decision that is not an outright approval (NS 5.2.13). See Consistency in decision-making for further guidance. This knowledge base is designed to assist in the development of consistent decisions on applications. 

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.