Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standards for Ethics in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2018 Update

Open access
Harriss, D., Macsween, A., Atkinson, G.·2017·International Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

For publication in the International Journal of Sports Medicine (IJSM), studies involving human participants or animals must have been conducted in accordance with recognised ethical standards and national/international laws. At the very first stage of paper submission, authors are required to adhere to these and all other relevant standards and laws. In the 21 st Century, research opportunities, approaches and environments are in a continual state of flux, and this is also the case for the associated ethical issues. In the original 2009 IJSM editorial [ 2 ], we described the ethical considerations embedded into national/international laws and provided specific guidance on the ethical issues which commonly arise in Sports Medicine research. In 2011, this information was updated to recognise the ethical principles of other professional associations and treaties when conducting research involving human participants [ 3 ]. Additional information was also provided on the use of Laboratory Animals in research, and on the links between sample size and research ethics. In the second update, published in 2013, we elaborated on the ethical issues relating to the investigation of doping agents; the use of animals for answering research questions that appear to be solely focussed on the enhancement of athletic performance; and sample size in the context of the burden to individual research participants [ 4 ]. In 2015, we updated some of the guidelines to account for the changes made to the Declaration of Helsinki in 2013, covered the use of social media in research, provided guidance on how researchers can feed back their incidental and pertinent findings to research participants, covered some of the issues relating to studies involving children, and outlined the difference between a full and pilot study in terms of desired number of participants [ 5 ]. In this, our new update for 2018 onwards, we provide the following revisions and additions, labelled with the word “ Update ” in bold text at various points in this paper; Clarification of the issues surrounding the use of a gatekeeper for accessing personal information on participants. Clarification of some of the requirements for research with participants who are either too young to give a valid consent (under relevant local Statute) themselves and/or who lack the mental capacity to give an informed consent. Clarification of the expectations for the presentation and content of information given to facilitate informed consent/assent. Highlighting of the obligation to breach confidentiality in certain circumstances and the importance of communicating all relevant process to the potential participant. Clarification on the use of person identifiable information including a reminder of the upcoming (May 2018) changes to legislation governing how personal data may be accessed and processed in research in the European Union ( https://www.eugdpr.org/ ). Provision of advice surrounding the increasing calls for open access data, including the resulting data storage issues. Update on the ethical and legal considerations involved in secondary analysis (retrospective data) studies. Clarification on the use of placebos in research. Coverage of the expectations for studies that involve participant deception (i. e. where fully informed consent is not obtained in advance of participation). Elaboration of the sample size issues relevant to research ethics. Coverage of the issues surrounding research on contracted athletes, who are obliged to have data collected on them as part of their contract. Highlighting of the issues surrounding participant withdrawal from a study Update on the importance of study registration on a public database and the publication of study protocols Update on sample size issues, including the recent concerns about reproducibility of study results Clarification of expectations for the reporting of adverse events/reactions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0043-124001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harriss, D., Macsween, A., & Atkinson, G.
Venue
International Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2017-12
Volume
38
Issue
14
Pages
1126-1131
ISSN
  • 0172-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-3964
OpenAlex
W2777285813
Cited by
455
References
3
FWCI
83.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.