FAQs

All Human Ethics applications are managed in IRMA, the research management system used by Southern Cross University to manage research activities and outputs. The URL to access IRMA is https://irma.scu.edu.au 

See the Human Ethics Knowledge Base (online manual): at How to start a new application NG - Research (scu.edu.au)

All investigators named on the application will receive automated email from research.irma advising that their application has been assigned to be reviewed.

See the Human Ethics Knowledge Base (online manual): at Annual Reports, Change of Protocol, Adverse Events/Ethics Breaches NG - Research (scu.edu.au) 

See ‘Add Investigators NG’ in the online manual Add Investigators NG - Research (scu.edu.au)

For access to essential templates and guides, please visit our Resources page. This page contains valuable materials designed to support your research activities and ensure compliance with our standards.

There are several options available: transfer of ethics approval from SCU to the new institution; appoint a new Chief Investigator at SCU to take over as the Chief Investigator; or, if the project is near completion, submit a final report and close the project before your departure. 
 
For more specific advice, please contact the Ethics Office at SCU or your new university. 

Contact the team by emailing human.ethics@scu.edu.au 

An HDR student is eligible to apply for ethics approval for their research project. However, the Principal Supervisor must review, sign off, and approve the submission as the Chief Investigator.

Low risk research involves only discomfort and while high risk research involves greater than discomfort.

Consult Chapter 2.1 and Chapter 5.1.10-5.1.4 of the National Statement and engage with the Ethics Office for advice on risk level and ethical assessment pathway.

Low risk research is reviewed by a Low Risk Committee, and high risk research is reviewed by the HREC.

Check the Low Risk Committee or HREC meeting dates for application submission closing deadlines.

It can take from two weeks to several months, depending on the risk level and complexity of the research. Typically, the Low Risk Committee reviews applications within 10 working days, and the Human Research Ethics Committee reviews applications within 4-6 weeks. However, these time frames may vary depending on the volume of applications, the availability of reviewers, and the need for clarifications or revisions. 

Report it to the Ethics Office through IRMA as soon as possible. 

Violations of the approved ethics protocol impacting the acceptability of your research. Report all breaches promptly via IRMA.

See the 'What to include' in the Applications and Approvals section of our website

Information on Research Integrity can be found on our Research Governance and Integrity page.

Gatekeeper approval is permission from an authorised person or structure within an organisation — such as a Head of School, CEO, club secretary, or Facebook group admin — to contact their members or use their recruitment channels for your study. 

If you already have ethics approval, you don’t usually need further ethics approval from another institution to recruit their members. Instead, you should seek institutional support (also called gatekeeper approval) to distribute your recruitment materials. 

Gatekeeper approval can be obtained before, during, or after applying for ethics approval. If you already have support, you may include this in your ethics application as evidence of access to your participant pool — though it’s no longer a requirement for approval. 

Processes differ between organisations, so contact them early to confirm what’s required and whom to approach. 

Important: You may speak with gatekeepers before ethics approval is granted, but you must not begin recruiting participants until ethics approval is in place. That means you must not: 

• Identify individuals as potential participants
• Make contact with potential participants (including advertising)
• Screen or excluding individuals
• Prepare to seek consent 

A brief letter or email of permission is usually sufficient for ethics documentation.

If your project has ethics approval, you do not typically need additional ethics approval from Southern Cross University (SCU) to recruit SCU staff or students. However, you must obtain institutional support (sometimes referred to as gatekeeper approval) to access recruitment channels or dissemination mechanisms at SCU. 

• Taught students – contact the Associate Dean (Education)
• HDR students – contact the Associate Dean (Research)
• Faculty or College staff – contact the Executive Dean
• Staff in non-Faculty units – contact the relevant Head of Work Unit 

Each Faculty or Work Unit will consider requests on a case-by-case basis. Be sure to seek approval before circulating any recruitment materials, either digitally or on campus.  

The National Statement (Chapter 5.5) encourages the minimisation of any unnecessary duplication of ethics review both within and across research sectors. This extends to research that will be conducted in more than one Australian jurisdiction or across international boundaries. If you already have ethics approval for your project from another HREC, IRB or equivalent ethics review process, SCU staff and students  are encouraged to register their approval with us by submitting a Minimisation via IRMA.   

Guidance for starting a new application is here: How to start a new application NG - Research When asked for the coversheet/form type in the dropdown, choose ‘Minimisation Duplication of Ethical Review V3’

Competent data management is central to ethical conduct of research. Please consult the Research Data Management pages for guidance.  

All researcher development programs and workshops available to academic staff and HDR students are accessible on the Research Compass calendar. Access the Research Compass - Home page to find out about upcoming opportunities. 

A conflict of interest arises when personal, financial, or professional interests have the potential to influence, or appear to influence, the way research is conducted. This can involve individuals or institutions and may relate to personal, familial, or organisational benefits. 

Competing interests are not limited to financial matters — they include any interest that could unduly affect research decisions or outcomes. Even the perception that a conflict is not properly managed can damage trust in the research and the institution. 

COIs and perceived COIs must be acknowledged and disclosed. Where possible they should be managed. This might include arranging for a third party to conduct recruitment, assigning an independent person to oversee parts of the project, or separating data collection from data analysis. 

Refer to the Conflict of Interests Relating to Research - Procedures.

Informed consent is a central tenant of ethical research. Occasionally, obtaining consent is not possible.  

Typically, researchers need to apply for a Waiver of Consent when they are proposing analyse an extant dataset of people’s information that was collected for purposes other than research. In these cases, the individuals whose data is being used will not have provided consent for it to be used in research, so an ethics committee must determine whether it is appropriate to allow the research to proceed without participants’ explicit consent. 

Approval must be granted by the HREC where the dataset contains identifiable information and either the research is medical in nature or the dataset includes health information. 

The conditions for granting a waiver are detailed in the National Statement Chapter 2.3.10. Researchers seeking a waiver of consent must demonstrate that the research meets all nine criteria listed.  

As set out in Australia’s privacy legislation, health information is a subset of sensitive information which is, in turn, a subset of personal information.  

If your research involves collecting or working with sensitive material, you have greater responsibility to protect the participants whose sensitive material you are using. Read the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC) advice on dealing with sensitive data.  

Personal information is defined in the Privacy Act 1988 as information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable: 

• Whether the information or opinion is true or not; and
• Whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not. 

Sensitive information is defined in the Privacy Act 1988 as: 

• Personal information that includes information or an opinion about an individual’s:
  • racial or ethnic origin; or
  • political opinions; or
  • membership of a political association; or
  • religious beliefs or affiliations; or
  • philosophical beliefs; or
  • membership of a professional or trade association; or
  • membership of a trade union; or
  • sexual orientation or practices; or
  • criminal record; that is also personal information; or
  • health information about an individual; or
• genetic information about an individual that is not otherwise health information; or
• biometric information that is to be used for the purpose of automated biometric verification or biometric identification; or
• biometric templates 

Health information is defined in the Privacy Act 1988 as: 

• information or an opinion about:
  • the health, including an illness, disability or injury, (at any time) of an individual; or
  • an individual’s expressed wishes about the future provision of health services to the individual; or
  • a health service provided, or to be provided, to an individual; that is also personal information;
• other personal information collected to provide, or in providing, a health service to an individual;
• other personal information collected in connection with the donation, or intended donation, by an individual of his or her body parts, organs or body substances;
• genetic information about an individual in a form that is, or could be, predictive of the health of the individual or a genetic relative of the individual. 

(Adapted from the HREA Information Page) 

If your data could be traced back to the individual who provided it, then it is re/identifiable.  

The identifiability of information is a characteristic that exists on a continuum. This continuum is affected by contextual factors, such as who has access to the information and other potentially related information, and by technical factors that have the potential to convert information that has been collected, used or stored in a form that is intended to protect the anonymity of individuals into information that can identify individuals. Additionally, contextual and technical factors can have a compound effect and can increase the likelihood of re-identifiability and the risk of negative consequences from this in ways that are difficult to fully anticipate and that may increase over time. [Copied from NS Chapter 3.1: Identifiability of information] 

Refer to the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC) page on Identifiable Data