This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
The core principle: minimisation of duplication
Where more than one institution has governance oversight of a human research project, each has a responsibility to adopt a review or authorisation process that minimises any unnecessary duplication of ethics review (NS 5.5.1). This applies regardless of research type or risk level, and to projects reviewed by full HREC or by a lower risk pathway (NS 5.5.2). The word "unnecessary" is doing the work here: some research and evaluation contexts truly warrant more than one review, but these should be the exception, not the default.
This article covers scenarios where more than one Australian HREC may be involved. It does not cover separate state or territory government authorisations, such as approval to work in schools, or international projects requiring approval in each jurisdiction; see Government review bodies and State and territory requirements for those.
How institutions should treat external review
When an institution receives a proposal that has already undergone ethics review elsewhere, the National Statement sets clear expectations. Institutions should establish and publicise criteria for accepting external ethics approvals, decide case-by-case, and take into account the evidence and standards applied by the external reviewer (NS 5.5.3–5.5.4). Where an institution accepts an external review, it should not conduct supplementary scientific or technical review of the research, except as agreed with the reviewing body (NS 5.5.5(c)). What the institution should do instead is clarify its own authorisation requirements and negotiate monitoring responsibilities with the reviewing body and the researchers (NS 5.5.5).
When additional review is justified
Additional review has a legitimate place where a proposal creates contextual or operational risks that an external reviewer could not see, such as risks tied to a specific institution, local community, or operational setting. This can apply for research taking place both in Australia and overseas, and consideration must be given to local requirements and expectations. Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities is a clear example: where HREC review is required, that review process must include seeking advice from HRECs with specialist expertise in this area, culturally capable and competent people, or people with relevant networks or knowledge, in addition to the reviewing HREC itself (NS 4.7.15). The Iris Ethics HREC meets these criteria in certain contexts, but in some cases a specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HREC should be consulted.
The distinguishing feature of legitimate additional review is that it serves a substantive ethical purpose; it is not simply procedural repetition.
Planning for multiple reviews
Researchers and evaluators should establish, during project planning, whether participating institutions (government agencies, health services, universities, schools) are likely to require their own review in addition to an external one, whether efficient processes exist for that review, and whether review for specific institutions can be sought separately from the rest of the project. Identifying this early, and initiating the right processes, is the researcher's or evaluator's responsibility; an external HREC can provide general guidance but cannot determine another institution's requirements for it.
Coordination between review bodies
Where multiple reviews are required, communication between HRECs helps ensure monitoring roles and responsibilities are clearly allocated, reducing administrative burden and giving researchers clarity about reporting obligations. Iris Ethics works with other HRECs to clarify the scope of review, discuss monitoring arrangements, and ensure additional review addresses genuine gaps rather than repeating an assessment already made.
Related resources
- Ethics review and other approvals: how ethics review relates to research governance authorisation generally
- Government review bodies: separate approvals from education, health, and justice authorities
- Special considerations: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NS 4.7): specialised review for research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
- Overseas research
This page was last updated on 9 October 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.