Reporting ethics in a research article 
Laporan etika dalam artikel penelitian 
Collated and edited by Ross Woods, 2026
These are model reports for the ethics section of a research article where:
- Research was conducted by focus group
- It was done within the researcher's own organization
- It posed negligible risk of harm to participants
- All data was de-identified.
The statement needs to be concise and brief for inclusion in a research article.
How to use them
You can copy and paste these statements for your own use, and you will need to modify them. They are CC0 (“CC Zero”) in Creative Commons. Teir usefulness will depend on the practices of your research ethics committee.
Ethics proposal 1: Employees
"This study will be submitted to the [Insert Institution Name] Research Ethics Committee for review and approval. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to participating in the focus groups. Participation will be entirely voluntary, and participants will be informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. To address the potential for power imbalances inherent in conducting research within one’s own organization, participants will be recruited via an independent gatekeeper, and the researchers will ensure that participation is unrelated to professional performance reviews. All data will be de-identified during transcription to maintain confidentiality, and original audio recordings will be securely destroyed following analysis. The study is expected to pose negligible risk of harm to participants."
Ethics report 1: Employees
"This study received approval from the [Insert Institution Name] Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: [Insert Number]). All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in the focus groups. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. To address the potential for power imbalances inherent in conducting research
within one’s own organization, participants were recruited via an independent gatekeeper, and the researchers ensured that participation was unrelated to professional performance reviews. All data were de-identified during transcription to maintain confidentiality, and original audio recordings were securely
destroyed following analysis. The study posed negligible risk of harm to participants."
Why these components matter for peer review
- The "Insider" Mitigation: When you conduct research in your own organization, reviewers will immediately flag potential power dynamics (e.g., "Will employees feel pressured to say yes?"). Mentioning the "independent gatekeeper" or confirming participation is "unrelated to performance reviews" is crucial to show that you mitigated coercion.
- Voluntary Withdrawal: This is a requirement for almost all ethical guidelines (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki/Belmont Report). Explicitly stating they could leave "without consequence" signals that you respected participant autonomy.
- Data Security: Explicitly stating that recordings were "securely destroyed" confirms you have a plan for data protection, which satisfies the privacy requirement.
- Negligible Risk: Stating this explicitly helps the reader (and the journal editor) understand why you did not need more complex ethical interventions (like clinical monitoring).
Ethics proposal 2: Students within a college context
When you research your own students, peer reviewers will look closely at "coercion risk"—meaning students might feel pressured to participate because they worry it will affect their grades or their relationship with you. This version explicitly addresses that dynamic while keeping the word count concise.
"This study will be submitted to the [Insert College Name] Institutional Review Board for review and approval. All student participants will provide informed consent before the focus groups commence, and participation will be entirely voluntary. Because the research will be conducted within the investigators' own institution, specific measures will be taken to eliminate coercion: recruitment will be handled by a third party, and students will be explicitly assured that participation (or non-participation) will have no bearing on their academic standing, course grades, or evaluations. All collected data will be de-identified immediately upon transcription to ensure anonymity. The research design is expected to carry negligible risk, presenting no greater discomfort or harm than that encountered in a typical classroom discussion."
Key Adjustments for the College Context
- Academic Protection: The phrase "no bearing on their academic standing, course grades, or evaluations" is the most critical addition. It signals to reviewers that the research design will protect the student-teacher hierarchy from influencing the data.
- Defining "Negligible Risk": In an educational setting, grounding the risk level by comparing it to a "typical classroom discussion" will provide clear, relatable context for the review board and editors.
- Third-Party Recruitment: Stating that recruitment will be handled by a third party (such as an administrative assistant or an automated campus email system rather than the instructor directly) further demonstrates that students will not feel pressured to agree to participate.
Ethics Statement 2: Students within a college context
When you research your own students, peer reviewers look closely at "coercion risk"—meaning students might feel pressured to participate because they worry it will affect their grades or their relationship with you. This version explicitly addresses that dynamic while keeping the word count concise.
"This study was reviewed and approved by the [Insert College Name] Institutional Review Board (Protocol #[Insert Number]). All student participants provided informed consent before the focus groups commenced, and participation was entirely voluntary. Because the research was conducted within the investigators' own institution, specific measures were taken to eliminate coercion: recruitment was handled by a third party, and students were explicitly assured that participation (or
non-participation) would have no bearing on their academic standing, course grades, or evaluations. All collected data were de-identified immediately upon transcription to ensure anonymity. The research design carried negligible risk, presenting no greater discomfort or harm than that encountered in a typical classroom discussion."
Key Adjustments for the College Context
- Academic Protection: The phrase "no bearing on their academic standing, course grades, or evaluations" is the most critical addition. It signals to reviewers that you protected the student-teacher hierarchy from influencing the data.
- Defining "Negligible Risk": In an educational setting, grounding the risk level by comparing it to a "typical classroom discussion" provides clear, relatable context for the review board and editors.
- Third-Party Recruitment: Mentioning that recruitment was handled by a third party (like an administrative assistant or an automated campus email system rather than the instructor directly) further demonstrates that students didn't feel put on the spot to say yes.
Key Adjustments Made for Actual Reports
- Tense Shift: Changed from future/procedural tense used in the proposal ("This protocol will be submitted...", "All data will be fully de-identified...") to past tense ("This study received approval..."), which is standard for reports.
- The report describes what actually happened. You need to report any practical adjustments that you had to make. However, you could not veer outside ethical standards.
- The application had greater operational clarity. It was down into clear sub-headings (e.g., Safeguards Against Academic Coercion) to help committee reviewers easily check off their compliance boxes during formatting reviews.
- The application had clearer boundaries: Explicitly stated how the third party or gatekeeper isolates the researcher from knowing who declined, which is a common follow-up question from ethics boards.
Berikut ini adalah contoh pernyataan untuk bagian etika dalam artikel penelitian, di mana:
- Penelitian dilakukan menggunakan focus group
- Penelitian dilakukan di dalam organisasi peneliti sendiri
- Penelitian tersebut menimbulkan risiko yang dapat diabaikan terhadap peserta
- Semua data telah dihilangkan identitasnya (de-identified).
Pernyataan ini perlu singkat dan ringkas agar sesuai untuk dimasukkan ke dalam artikel penelitian.
Cara menggunakannya
Anda dapat menyalin dan menempelkan pernyataan-pernyataan ini untuk digunakan dalam penelitian Anda sendiri, tetapi Anda perlu menyesuaikannya. Pernyataan-pernyataan ini berlisensi CC0 ("CC Zero") di Creative Commons. Kegunaannya akan bergantung pada praktik yang diterapkan oleh komite etik penelitian di institusi Anda.
Laporan Etika 1: Karyawan
"Penelitian ini telah memperoleh persetujuan dari Komite Etik Penelitian [Masukkan Nama Institusi] (Nomor Referensi: [Masukkan Nomor]). Seluruh peserta memberikan persetujuan tertulis setelah menerima penjelasan (informed consent) sebelum mengikuti focus group. Partisipasi sepenuhnya bersifat sukarela, dan para peserta diberi tahu bahwa mereka berhak mengundurkan diri dari penelitian kapan saja tanpa konsekuensi apa pun. Untuk mengatasi potensi ketidakseimbangan kekuasaan yang melekat pada pelaksanaan penelitian di dalam organisasi sendiri, peserta direkrut melalui perantara independen (independent gatekeeper), dan para peneliti memastikan bahwa partisipasi tidak berkaitan dengan penilaian kinerja profesional. Seluruh data dihilangkan identitasnya selama proses transkripsi untuk menjaga kerahasiaan, dan rekaman audio asli dimusnahkan secara aman setelah analisis selesai. Penelitian ini menimbulkan risiko yang dapat diabaikan terhadap para peserta."
Mengapa komponen-komponen ini penting dalam proses telaah sejawat (peer review)
- Mitigasi Penelitian "Insider": Jika Anda melakukan penelitian di dalam organisasi Anda sendiri, para penelaah (reviewer) akan segera memperhatikan potensi ketidakseimbangan kekuasaan (misalnya, "Apakah para karyawan merasa tertekan untuk menyetujui ikut serta?"). Menyebutkan adanya "perantara independen (independent gatekeeper)" atau menegaskan bahwa partisipasi "tidak berkaitan dengan penilaian kinerja" sangat penting untuk menunjukkan bahwa Anda telah meminimalkan kemungkinan terjadinya paksaan.
- Hak untuk Mengundurkan Diri Secara Sukarela: Ini merupakan persyaratan dalam hampir semua pedoman etika (misalnya, Deklarasi Helsinki/Laporan Belmont). Menyatakan secara eksplisit bahwa peserta dapat mengundurkan diri "tanpa konsekuensi apa pun" menunjukkan bahwa Anda menghormati otonomi peserta.
- Keamanan Data: Menyatakan secara eksplisit bahwa rekaman telah "dimusnahkan secara aman" menunjukkan bahwa Anda memiliki rencana perlindungan data yang memadai, sehingga memenuhi persyaratan privasi.
- Risiko yang Dapat Diabaikan: Menyatakan hal ini secara eksplisit membantu pembaca (dan editor jurnal) memahami mengapa penelitian ini tidak memerlukan tindakan etis yang lebih kompleks (misalnya, pemantauan klinis).
Laporan etika 2: Mahasiswa dalam konteks perguruan tinggi
Apabila Anda meneliti mahasiswa yang Anda ajar sendiri, para penelaah sejawat (peer reviewer) akan memberikan perhatian khusus pada risiko paksaan (coercion risk)
—yaitu kemungkinan mahasiswa merasa tertekan untuk berpartisipasi karena khawatir hal itu akan memengaruhi nilai atau hubungan mereka dengan Anda. Versi ini secara eksplisit mengatasi dinamika tersebut sambil tetap menjaga jumlah kata agar tetap ringkas.
"Penelitian ini telah ditinjau dan disetujui oleh Institutional Review Board [Masukkan Nama Perguruan Tinggi] (Protokol No. [Masukkan Nomor]). Seluruh mahasiswa peserta memberikan persetujuan setelah menerima penjelasan (informed consent) sebelum pelaksanaan focus group, dan partisipasi sepenuhnya bersifat sukarela. Karena penelitian dilakukan di institusi tempat para peneliti bekerja, langkah-langkah khusus diterapkan untuk menghilangkan kemungkinan paksaan: proses rekrutmen ditangani oleh pihak ketiga, dan mahasiswa secara tegas diberi jaminan bahwa keikutsertaan (atau ketidakikutsertaan) mereka tidak akan memengaruhi status akademik, nilai mata kuliah, maupun evaluasi akademik mereka. Seluruh data yang dikumpulkan dihilangkan identitasnya segera setelah proses transkripsi untuk menjamin anonimitas. Rancangan penelitian ini menimbulkan risiko yang dapat diabaikan, sehingga tidak menimbulkan ketidaknyamanan atau bahaya yang lebih besar daripada yang biasanya dialami dalam diskusi kelas pada umumnya."
Penyesuaian Utama untuk Konteks Perguruan Tinggi
- Perlindungan Akademik: Frasa
tidak akan memengaruhi status akademik, nilai mata kuliah, maupun evaluasi akademik mereka
merupakan tambahan yang paling penting. Frasa ini menunjukkan kepada para penelaah bahwa Anda telah melindungi hierarki hubungan dosen–mahasiswa agar tidak memengaruhi data penelitian. - Mendefinisikan
Risiko yang Dapat Diabaikan
: Dalam konteks pendidikan, menjelaskan tingkat risiko dengan membandingkannya dengandiskusi kelas pada umumnya
memberikan konteks yang jelas dan mudah dipahami bagi komite etik maupun editor jurnal. - Rekrutmen oleh Pihak Ketiga: Menyebutkan bahwa proses rekrutmen ditangani oleh pihak ketiga (misalnya staf administrasi atau sistem email kampus otomatis, bukan dosen secara langsung) semakin menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa tidak merasa ditekan untuk menyatakan kesediaannya berpartisipasi.
Penyesuaian Utama yang Dilakukan untuk Laporan Penelitian
- Perubahan Bentuk Waktu: Diubah dari bentuk waktu yang bersifat prospektif/prosedural yang digunakan dalam proposal (
Protokol ini akan diajukan...
,Seluruh data akan dihilangkan identitasnya...
) menjadi bentuk lampau (Penelitian ini telah memperoleh persetujuan...
), yang merupakan bentuk baku untuk laporan penelitian. - Laporan penelitian menjelaskan apa yang benar-benar terjadi. Oleh karena itu, Anda perlu melaporkan setiap penyesuaian praktis yang harus dilakukan selama penelitian. Namun demikian, penyesuaian tersebut tidak boleh menyimpang dari standar etika yang berlaku.
- Aplikasi etik memiliki kejelasan operasional yang lebih tinggi. Dokumen tersebut dibagi ke dalam subjudul yang jelas (misalnya, Perlindungan terhadap Paksaan Akademik) sehingga memudahkan anggota komite untuk memeriksa kepatuhan terhadap setiap persyaratan selama proses penelaahan.
- Aplikasi etik juga memiliki batasan yang lebih jelas: Dijelaskan secara eksplisit bagaimana pihak ketiga atau gatekeeper mencegah peneliti mengetahui siapa saja yang menolak berpartisipasi, karena hal ini merupakan salah satu pertanyaan lanjutan yang paling sering diajukan oleh komite etik.
CC BY-NC-ND
This work is released under a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you (1) properly attribute it, (2) do not use it for commercial gain, and (3) do not create derivative works. Link
Disclaimer: Artificial Intelligence (AI) was used in some parts of this book. If AI plagiarized your content, contact the author with evidence to initiate changes.