The debate surrounding research ethics has broadened in the management field. Ensuring the protection of research participants was the central concern of early discussions on this topic. Nevertheless, the diversification of research methods and the increase in scientific production brought to light aspects such as transparency in data processing and analysis and, more recently, the use of artificial intelligence in fabricating data and writing articles.
Editors, reviewers and authors play a crucial role in defining and implementing ethical principles in research. We have the responsibility of generating scientific knowledge through a rigorous process. In this sense, this editorial aims to complement previous discussion on the fundamentals of ethics in management research (e.g. Bell & Bryman, 2007; Greenwood, 2016) and to familiarize early-stage scholars with how to apply these fundamentals in their studies. We begin by presenting a brief history of ethics in research. Then, we propose a reflection on sensitive issues and present a summary of tools to help researchers ensure ethical research practices.
Ethics in research: a brief history
Ethics refers to the obligation to act in a manner that is right and fair, thereby avoiding harm to society and promoting the greater good. Viewing scientific research as a context in which ethics should be applied becomes a topic of debate as science evolves, particularly with the increasing involvement of human beings as the primary source of data.
The experiments conducted by the Nazis during Second World War brought to the fore the discussion about the freedom granted to scientists (e.g. physicians) in making decisions about their research conduct. From this context, essential documents emerged, such as:
the Nuremberg Code [1] (1947), a document with ten principles on the fundamental rights of research participants and the responsibilities of researchers;
the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki [2] (1964), which signaled the need for a protocol that clearly explains the design and conduct of research, and the importance of its assessment by an independent ethics committee; and
the Belmont Report [3] (1979), that postulated three basic ethical principles – respect for persons, beneficence and justice – which are universal and guide researchers’ scientific conduct worldwide.
The three Belmont Report principles for ethical research involve (Office for Human Research Protections, 2025) the following:
Respect for persons: It is based on the assumption that all individuals must be recognized as autonomous, and those with reduced autonomy must be protected.
Beneficence: Research must ensure the well-being of individuals, seeking to maximize benefits and minimize potential harm.
Justice: This principle is driven by the following question: Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens? Thus, justice is achieved when the distribution of burdens and benefits considers to each person an equal share, to each person according to individual need, to each person according to individual effort, to each person according to societal contribution and to each person according to merit.
In addition to these three principles, research merit and integrity are essential principles of ethical conduct mentioned by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in its National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, which states that (Wallace & Sheldon, 2015, p. 268):
Research is justifiable by potential benefits and skill and expertise of researchers, designed and developed using appropriate methods, based on through study of the current literature, designed to ensure respect for participants, conducted or supervised by people with experience and using appropriate facilities and resources, has involved peer review for research merit and conducted with integrity (searching for knowledge, using recognised principles of research conduct).
Thus, we understand that the research is more than “an end,” but a means of providing benefits to society. On the other hand, individuals who volunteer to collaborate with research are “ends,” not means (Fujii, 2012). To this, scholars should be aware of the potential benefits and risks that research participants are subject to, and certify that such participation is necessary. If so, we must guarantee individuals’ fundamental rights, respecting their freedom and personal values. Moreover, we should treat the information provided by them with transparency and integrity, by applying correct and appropriate methods to build reliable and valid knowledge.
Drawing on such principles, several governments, scientists’ associations and universities have developed their own protocols to guarantee ethical research. In parallel, the academic debate on this topic has been enlarged. Traditionally, articles in the field of management have focused on the adoption of essential protocols to ensure ethical research practices, such as obtaining approval for projects from institutional review boards and obtaining informed consent in empirical studies (Jeanes, 2017). Others have highlighted such issues as the ethics of quantitative (e.g. Zyphur & Pierides, 2017) and qualitative approaches (e.g. Scheytt & Pflüger, 2024), as well as thoughts on methodological research designs with purpose, care and reflexivity (e.g. Islam & Greenwood, 2023). More recently, scholars have focused on issues arising from technology, such as the ethical aspects of internet-based research (e.g. Cilliers & Viljoen, 2021) and the multiple uses of artificial intelligence in research (e.g. Matos et al., 2024). Further relevant discussion is associated with the ethical issues that arise when conducting research with organizations. As proposed by McGregor (2023), we should be concerned about any possibility of blurring an institution’s reputation (and all the potential negative consequences of it) because of the way data and results are revealed.
Hence, as management researchers who use data from individuals and organizations, we should be aware of the fundamental principles of conducting ethical research and its significance for academia and society.
Why is this debate essential?
Understanding the ethical aspects of research is essential for all academics, as it helps in designing methodological procedures (including data collection and analysis) aligned with the principles of ethical conduct (Wallace & Sheldon, 2015). Following ethical principles strengthens the scientific research ecosystem, which comprises universities, scholars, governments, policymakers, companies, practitioners and the general public. As scholars follow research ethics protocols and describe them clearly in their reports, they certify that they can “be held accountable to the public,” especially those whose research is publicly funded (Resnik, 2024), increasing the trust of multiple stakeholders in the rigor and integrity of science.
By being legally responsible for the study and its results, researchers who follow ethical principles are committed to not fabricating data or p-hacking. They are aware of the negative consequences that false positives could generate for any stakeholder who applies a practical implication recommended by a published study. Theoretically, ethical conduct productively ensures the advancement of knowledge, without yielding results that could confuse or mislead other scholars.
In addition, academics driven by ethics in research are committed to warranting the protection of all research participants, especially those who are employees of a company or government. Our role is to inform individuals about all potential risks and rights associated with participating in a study, and ensure they understand that this participation is entirely voluntary and anonymous. It must be clear that the individual has the total power to choose to participate or not, without this decision bringing any negative consequences or job insecurity (this aspect becomes particularly vital when the researcher works at the same company or provides services for it) (Bell & Bryman, 2007).
Finally, such a debate is essential because it reinforces that the core of scientific research is to generate knowledge that promotes social well-being, minimizes losses, maximizes gains and positively impacts different domains in society, rather than just fulfilling academic goals. This mindset is essential for researchers to become aware of the “publish or perish” traps, which have been the subject of debate in many other editorials (e.g. Elbanna & Child, 2023; Hourneaux, Hamza, & Cordeiro, 2024), as it reveals numerous problems associated with (the lack of) research ethics, such as plagiarism, lack of criteria for paper authorship and transparency regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the scientific text-writing process, among others. Respect for the scientific community is essential, as reviewing is a voluntary, unpaid activity that reviewers undertake alongside many other academic demands. Scholarly journals serve as forums consulted by many members of the scientific research ecosystem to update their knowledge and encourage new studies.
Strategies to do research ethically: a summary for management scholars
In this topic, we present a summary of tools to help early-stage scholars ensure ethical research practices.
Institutional review boards’ approval
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees are entities that review and approve research involving human subjects. Their role is to ensure that participants understand the reasons for the study and to guarantee their rights and protections as individuals. As a researcher, you should verify whether your institution and/or the journal to which your work will be submitted requires IRB approval. If yes, submit your project describing the research question, its social relevance and the detailed planned research methods. Be familiar with the submission platforms (such as Plataforma Brasil in Brazil) and aware of the deadlines for IRB approval, as this process can take considerable time and impact your timeline.
Informed consent, assent form and letter of consent
Informed consent is a form signed by autonomous adults to participate in research. The language of this document must be clear and include the following information: project title, research objectives, risks and benefits for the individual to take part in the study, guarantees of confidentiality, data protection, freedom to withdraw and all information about the IRB approval and the researchers responsible for the study. When submitting the project to the IRB, the scholar must include this document for review. In the case of studies with children, adolescents or nonautonomous individuals, the researcher must prepare an assent form. The primary difference between the consent form and the assent form is that the latter includes a “Name of participant or responsible” item to identify the person responsible for the participant.
When investigating organizations, the researcher must obtain a letter of consent on company letterhead, granting the researcher the right to conduct research on the company and collect both official company data and primary data obtained from employees who will speak on the company’s behalf. This document must clearly show whether the company’s name may be (or not) disclosed in the material resulting from the research. When submitting the project to the IRB (if necessary), this document must already be signed by a company delegate.
Transparency and integrity in analyzing data
Several strategies can help scholars ensure the methodological rigor of their studies, thereby increasing stakeholders’ trust in the research and its findings. Some of these methodological strategies are presented below:
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research – COREQ. Originally developed by Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig ((2007) for health-care studies, this 32-item protocol provides guiding questions to help scholars conduct and report on interviews and focus groups. Best practices include describing whether a relationship was established between the principal researcher and participants before the study commenced, whether transcripts were returned to participants for comment and/or correction and the number of individuals who refused to participate or dropped out, along with the reasons for their refusal or withdrawal.
Preregistration. To ensure that a study’s hypotheses were ethically tested rather than generated after data mining, particularly in experimental research, many researchers are preregistering their study’s hypotheses and analytical plan before collecting data (e.g. Kirklies et al., 2024; Ramos, Vieites, Jacob, & Andrade, 2020). A step-by-step guide on how to preregister a study can be found in the work by Logg and Dorison (2021), and free tools to do it are available on the Open Science Framework website (Link to osf.Link to the cited article.).
Open science. Research integrity and reliability are based on transparency. Thus, there is a growing movement aimed at addressing the reproducibility crisis, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence, through the adoption of open-access initiatives. & The editorial series by Limongi and Rogers (2025a, 2025b) and Rogers and Limongi (2025) presents a comprehensive discussion on the principles of open science, the available tools for practicing open science and an integrated workflow for application called ARTE Workflow (Article Reproducibility Template and Environment).
Concluding remarks
We hope this editorial sparks reflection on the importance of research ethics, especially among those beginning their careers as researchers. We expect the tools presented here to enhance the scientific rigor of future research and encourage the development of best research practices among early-stage scholars.
Notes
Nuremberg Code: Link to NEJM.Link to the cited article.
Declaration of Helsinki: Link to WMA.Link to the cited article.
Belmont Report: Link to HHS.Link to the cited article.
