Skip to main content

The Ethics Review Committee (ERC)

The Procedure for Screening ERC

The formal procedure for screening research ethics applications follows a structured, transparent, and accountable process. Here are the key steps involved at SUSL.

📋 Key steps in the procedure
Step 01

Submission of Application

Researchers submit a completed Ethics Application Form, along with supporting documents such as:

  • Research proposal
  • Participant information sheet
  • Consent forms
  • Data collection tools (e.g., questionnaires, interview guides)
  • Institutional approvals (if applicable)
Step 02

Administrative Screening (Preliminary Review)

Acknowledgement of the receipt of application.

Ethics Review Committee checks for:

  • Completion of the application
  • Proper formatting
  • Required documents attached
  • Eligibility of the researcher and project
Incomplete applications are returned for revision before proceeding further.
Step 03

Classification of Risk Level

The application is assessed to determine the risk level and classified accordingly:

  • Exempted (minimal or no risk)
  • Expedited Review (minimal risk, can be reviewed by a subcommittee or designated reviewers)
  • Full Committee Review (more than minimal risk, vulnerable populations, sensitive topics)
Step 04

Review by Ethics Committee

Depending on risk level:

  • Expedited Review: Reviewed by three (03) designated members.
  • Full Committee Review: Discussed at a scheduled Ethics Review Committee (ERC) meeting.
Reviewers assess the application against core ethical principles:
  • Respect for persons (informed consent, autonomy)
  • Beneficence (risk-benefit balance)
  • Justice (fair selection of participants)
  • Confidentiality and data protection
Step 05

Decision and Feedback

The committee may issue one of the following:

  • Approval: No further changes needed.
  • Conditional Approval: Minor revisions required (e.g., wording of consent form).
  • Deferred: Major revisions required; must be resubmitted.
  • Rejection: Ethical concerns cannot be resolved, or the study is unethical.
Step 06

Communication of Outcome

A formal letter is sent to the Principal Researcher with:

  • The decision
  • Any required revisions
  • Justifications for changes (if any)
  • Approval reference number and date (if approved)
  • Date of expiry (if approved)
Step 07

Resubmission (if applicable)

  • Researcher revises and resubmits the application or documents as requested.
  • Resubmitted materials undergo review again (expedited or full, depending on changes required and completed).
Step 08

Monitoring and Continuing Review

For approved studies, the researcher may be required to:

  • Submit progress reports
  • Report adverse events or protocol deviations
  • Apply for renewal if the study continues beyond the approval period (submit an application for renewal before the previous approval period elapses)
  • Submit a brief final report upon study completion
🔄 Process flow summary
1. Submission of Application 2. Administrative Screening 3. Risk Classification 4. Ethical Review by Committee 5. Decision Made 6. Communication to Researcher 7. Resubmission if Required 8. Monitoring and Final Reporting