Explicit reporting of prospective ethics approval in psychology research to enhance transparency

Prospective ethics approval obtained from an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee before commencing the study is a fundamental safeguard for studies involving human participants. International declarations, national regulations, and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles all require such prior approval. Yet, in published psychology research, ethics statements often ambiguously use phrases such as “approval was obtained” or “this study was approved,” without clarifying whether this occurred before commencing the study. This ambiguity is consequential, because under some institutional or IRB policies, retrospective (post-hoc) approval is allowed. Empirical evidence shows inconsistent reporting of approval timing across disciplines, including psychology. In this opinion, we call for psychology journals to require authors to explicitly confirm that approval was obtained before commencing the study, or to explain otherwise. This opinion outlines the relevant ethical standards, identifies scenarios in psychology where ambiguity arises, and proposes a simple reporting standard to strengthen transparency and uphold participant protections.