This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Most delays in review trace back to a small number of avoidable problems. Addressing these before submission benefits both applicants and reviewers.
Copying content into the form instead of pointing to it
Iris Ethics forms are built so that you can refer the Panel to an existing evaluation or research plan rather than duplicate its content. Applicants who try to answer every field from scratch, without a well-developed underlying plan to draw on, often submit thinner information than the Panel needs. If your project plan is sound, use it; if it is not yet detailed enough to answer the form's questions, that is a sign the plan itself needs more work before you apply.
Leaving a gap unexplained
Adaptive designs, such as co-design or developmental evaluation, legitimately develop some instruments after approval. The mistake is submitting an application that is simply silent about a missing document. An unexplained gap forces the Panel to come back to you with a formal request for more information, which pauses the review. Instead, state what is missing, why it cannot exist yet, how and by whom it will be developed, and when it will be ready for review. See Supporting documents for how to describe a planned gap.
Missing required documents
Applications submitted without a protocol or project plan, a data management plan, team CVs, participant information and consent materials, or a risk management protocol cannot be reviewed on those points; the National Statement requires that recruitment materials, participant information sheets, consent forms, and data collection instruments be approved by the review body before use (NS 5.2.15–5.2.16). These items cannot be supplied after the fact once data collection has begun.
Choosing the wrong review pathway
Applying for a Lower Risk Review when the project carries a foreseeable risk of harm, rather than discomfort, burden or minor inconvenience, means the Panel must reassign the application to the correct pathway, adding delay. If you are unsure which product a project needs, resolve this before submitting; see Lower risk vs full HREC review.
Incomplete conflict of interest disclosure
Chapter 5.6 of the National Statement requires disclosure of interests that may bear on an application. Declaring a possible conflict does not count against you; it gives the Panel information it can manage. Omitting a real or perceived interest, and having it surface later, is a more serious problem than disclosing it upfront.
Responding to feedback with a partial answer
When the Panel requests clarification, more information, or an amended document, a response that addresses only some of the points, or that argues against a request without engaging with it, slows the review further. Address each point directly, and provide both a clean and a tracked-changes version of any amended document. See Responding to requests for information/amendment.
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.