BPS Code of Human Research Ethics
Abstract
This edition of the British Psychological Society Code of Human Research Ethics has been substantially revised and updated from the 2014 edition. Although the changes reflect developments in the field of research ethics, the basic Principles remain unchanged. This new version is intended, as were previous editions, to help psychology researchers to engage actively in identifying, analysing and addressing the range of ethics issues that are pertinent for their particular projects. While many issues are perennial, and this Code seeks to identify these and provide guidance in how to satisfactorily manage them, new research topics and methods are constantly generating new ethics challenges. So this Code also seeks to engender a mode of thinking that will enable researchers to competently and confidently approach carrying out their investigations in ethically sound ways. In addition, this Code sets out the Society’s expectations for how ethics review is best conducted so that participants can be assured that any research they take part in has been properly scrutinised.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The BPS Code of Human Research Ethics suggests that when new ethical issues emerge that society does not cover, or when ethics are understood as tick-box exercises, the ethical quality of research can be compromised.
“Indeed, the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (Oates et al., 2021) suggests that when new ethical issues emerge that society does not cover, or when ethics are understood as tick-box exercises, the ethical quality of research can be compromised.”
From Quality Criteria: General and Specific Guidelines for Qualitative Approaches in Psychology Research. A Concise Guide for Novice Researchers and Reviewers (2024) · cites this paper as Oates et al., 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cena, E., Brooks, J., Day, W., Goodman, S., Rousaki, A., Ruby-Granger, V., & Seymour-Smith, S. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241282843 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“Max-imising bene fi t and minimising harm ” (Oates et al., 2021, p.6).”
InfluentialHusbands, D., Linceviciute, S., & Yetkili, O. (2025) · Race Ethnicity and Education · doi:10.1080/13613324.2024.2386949 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oates, J., Carpenter, D., Fisher, M., Goodson, S., Hannah, B., Kwiatkowski, R., Prutton, K., Reeves, D., & Wainwright, T.
- Affiliations
- The Open University (GB)
- University of Huddersfield (GB)
- Cranfield University (GB)
- University of Derby (GB)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Venue
- British Psychological Society eBooks
- Publisher
- British Psychological Society
- Published
- 2021-04
- OpenAlex
- W3173087587
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 60.17
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Psychological Society eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- research ethics, human research ethics, code of ethics, ethical review, research participant protection, psychology research
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
