title: Ethics approval, guarantees of quality and the meddlesome editor.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The authors aim to challenge accepted views about the dissemination of ethically acceptable research, presenting a case for adopting an alternative strategy.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  A previous editorial proposed additional ethical censorship of articles submitted for publication in JCN based on the requirement to produce evidence of formal research ethics committee approval. MAIN ARGUMENTS: Such regulation would be both ineffective and undesirable. Much worthwhile, ethical research in the UK falls outside the remit of National Health Service research ethics committees but is subject to alternative means of ethical guidance and scrutiny. A case study demonstrates the difficulties faced by such researchers and illuminates alternative means to ensure and demonstrate ethical research conduct. If researchers comply with relevant requirements pertaining to their discipline, this should be sufficient for the journal. A full discussion should be presented by the author of ethical difficulties faced in the project and how these were addressed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Regulation of the ethical acceptability of work published in journals has not been widely addressed in the literature. This paper presents challenging arguments, introducing wider perspectives on ethical regulation from other disciplines and proposing an alternative strategy. Answers to the specific questions posed by the editor are offered, concluding that the proposed scheme should not be implemented. The normal process of peer-review should be the means of ensuring the publication of ethically acceptable research.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Health care in the UK is situated both within the National Health Service and in the private and voluntary sectors, and the boundary between health and social care continues to be eroded. More clinical research studies will be undertaken that do not fall within the remit of National Health Service research ethics committees. The issues discussed here will become pertinent to an ever-wider group of researchers and clinicians.
authors.affiliation: School of Nursing, University of Salford, Salford, UK. t.long@salford.ac.uk
authors.forename: Tony
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Long
authors.forename: Debbie
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Fallon
mesh_terms: D003219:Confidentiality / Q000941:ethics; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D035081:Editorial Policies; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000458:organization & administration; D033161:Government Regulation; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination / Q000941:ethics; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics; D016743:Mental Competency; D015399:Nursing Research / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000941:ethics; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000941:ethics*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000941:ethics / Q000592:standards; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards; D015871:Scientific Misconduct / Q000941:ethics*; D012941:Social Responsibility; D013222:State Medicine / Q000941:ethics / Q000458:organization & administration; D006113:United Kingdom