Reviewer FAQs

• Snowball sampling is a recruitment technique in which research participants are asked to provide contact information about another person for the purpose of allowing research recruitment.  The technique for recruitment can be appropriate depending upon the nature and sensitivity of the research topic:
  • For low-risk research it may be appropriate for subjects to provide researchers with names and contact information for people they know who may be interested in participating. The researcher could then contact the new participant directly. This process is acceptable in research where participants are asked to give perceptions on a benign topic or participants are in a place that is open to the public
  • For more sensitive research, the researcher should justify the need for the snowball technique and provide mechanisms to minimize the risk of violating the secondary participant’s privacy.  For example: The researcher may provide their contact information, a link to the approved study recruitment information, flyers or QR code to allow participants/stakeholders to pass the recruitment information to others. This process is essential in instances where identifying a new participant would immediately reveal personal information or health status (e.g., drug use) of the new participant.
• The protocol should clearly articulate
  • the justification for the use of the technique in the context of the study and the target population. 
  • Steps taken to minimize the risk of violating an individual’s privacy in recruitment.
• Care must be taken to account for the local culture, political climate, and individual potential participants’ expectation of privacy when determining relative study of the study for the topic.

See NSF FAQ http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp#snow

• If the research proposed involves gathering data from, about, or engaging a student or students they have some responsibility over to gather data for the researcher, then there is an inherent conflict of interest. Special precautions need to be taken to ensure that this conflict is managed and there is no unintended coercion. Students may feel as if they will be punished, disappoint the teacher or receive a lower grade if they choose not to participate in the project. Some options to remedy the situation are offered below:
  • The study can be presented by a colleague or somebody not involved with the students to allow students to make a decision without feeling obligated to comply.
  • The study can be completely anonymous. Data must be collected in a manner that does not allow the teacher to determine which students participated.
  • The teacher can collect the data and hold it for research use until after the class has been completed and grading is complete. This method can only be used where the same teacher will not teach the same students in the following semester.
  • If appropriate, the study may be conducted utilizing assignments that are part of the normal curriculum.
• In addition to these precautions, the consent form or assent form needs to state that the students will not receive any penalty nor will the teacher get upset, if they choose not to participate.  The consent/assent should be clear about what controls will be used.
• To meet the requirements under FERPA:  The researcher will need consent to use student data gathered for teaching purposes for research use.  This permission should be included in the research informed consent or the course syllabus with instructions for how to opt out.

More information on Faculty Use of Student Data in Research Policy

SONA is a research management system that tracks participation and provides participation credits for students who are required to obtain such credits for class participation.  Students in PSYC 1101 have a uniform minimum research or alternate assignment participation credit requirement.  Instructors can see the amount of credits students have received but do not control what studies or alternates the students choose. Credits earned are based upon the study time commitment (See Psychology department policy).

• Anyone who is “engaged” in the research must be included in the personnel section of the application. This includes anyone who will conduct research procedures including consenting participants and data collection as well as anyone who will have access to raw data.
• All personnel DO NOT have to be listed as PI or Co-PIs on the cover page. The decision on who is listed as PI and Co-PI is at the discretion of the research team. Student researchers should consult their thesis or dissertation committees.

Effective May 15, 2023, the IRB will no longer require individual Co-I signatures on IRB applications for researchers using the current application form posted on the website (as of 5/10/23).  As a result, the following wording has been added to the PI certification statement “I further certify that all personnel listed on this application have reviewed and approved of their described engagement in this research.  I understand that I am responsible for the conduct of all researchers engaged in this project.”  Applications will still require the signature of the PI and their department chair (for faculty PI’s) or their faculty advisor (for student PI’s). Researchers are responsible for ensuring that all personnel listed on the IRB application have reviewed the application including all revisions made after submission for accuracy and agree to abide by the protocol conditions.

• The PI must sign the application.  
• Personnel listed in the personnel section but not listed as PI or as a Co-I do not need to sign the application.
• If the PI is a student, their faculty advisor must sign the application.  If the faculty advisor is also research personnel (Co-I or other) they still must sign off at the bottom of the cover page.
• If the PI is faculty or staff, their department chair must sign the application.  If the PI is the department chair, their dean or research associate dean must sign the application.

• GS Personnel
  • Any Georgia Southern personnel listed in the personnel section of the application.
  • If the PI is a student, their research advisor.
• Non-GS Personnel
  • If affiliated with another institution, outside researchers are required to submit a copy of the human subjects training required by their institution.
  • If not affiliated with another institution, outside researchers can complete CITI training through the Georgia Southern account.

University Researcher sometimes provide an incentive to obtain sufficient participation in a research project. That incentive can take many forms including monetary (e.g. gift cards, phone minute cards) and non-monetary items (e.g., T-shirts, books) or intangible benefits (e.g., nominal extra credit option where alternate methods of obtaining equal extra credit are available).

• The value of the incentive must be nominal and in alignment with the effort expended by the participant so as to avoid becoming potentially coercive.
• Incentives can not be considered as a benefit of the research. Incentives are compensation to offset the inconvenience of participating in the research.
• Incentives can not exert undue influence over the participant. (HHS – addressing payment concerns)
  • each situation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine appropriate balance of incentive to effort and assure clear description of how the incentive will be fairly distributed. (HHS – Addressing ethical concerns, offers of payment to research participants)
• The incentive must be clearly described in both the narrative and the informed consent. The incentives must not be overstated or sensationalized in recruitment materials.
• Any incentive utilized must be clearly described in the narrative and informed consent. (See details below)
• For studies that extend over several sessions or stages, incentives must accrue in alignment with effort. Incentive credit should be accrued as the study progresses and not contingent upon the subject completing the entire study. (FDA – Payment and Reimbursement to Research Subjects)
• Any limitation on incentive accrual must be in agreement with the participant effort in terms of time, money or other resources and clearly stated in the informed consent.
  • E.g., single effort short duration studies can assign a nominal incentive that does not impact participant costs to accrue at the end of the effort. (e.g., a nominal gift card may be provided at the end of a interview or survey, while reimbursement for parking to attend an interview or focus group meeting should not be withheld if the participant ends participation early. )

Important: When you describe the incentive in your informed consent it must include:

• An explanation of how participants will be compensated
• The amount and form of compensation
• How the researcher will distribute the incentive to participants — including any identifiable information that will be collected during that process
• Circumstances under which participants will or will not receive the full or partial incentive.
• Timeframe in which the incentive will be distributed.

A drawing style format may only be used as a research recruitment incentive if potential participants can elect to participate in the drawing without being required to participate in the research to be eligible to win. (For information on incentives not presented as a drawing see Human Subjects Incentive Guidance)

To use a drawing as an incentive within the law –

• The IRB narrative recruitment section must include a description of how individuals, including those who do not consent to participate in the research, will be notified of the drawing and provided with access to participate. Everyone who elects to participate in the drawing must have an equal chance of winning all prizes.
• The informed consent must include statements that participation is not required to enter the drawing, that participants will remain eligible to win even if they withdraw from the study before completion, and state how non-participants can enter into the drawing.
• The drawing must be conducted in a way that does not compromise any participant anonymity or confidentiality that is promised within the approved protocol.
• The research may not include activities that are more than minimal risk and may not include participants who are under the age of 18.

Georgia Southern IRB will not approve an incentive strategy that meets the definition of a lottery or raffle
under Georgia law.

Under Georgia Code 16-12-22.1 (b)(3) – a lottery or “raffle” means any scheme or procedure whereby one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons who have paid or promised consideration for a chance to win such a prize. For research – that consideration would be the participants time and knowledge.

• Data accessed through the NIH All of Us Research portal is covered by a single IRB that is directed by the All of Us project under NIH.  GS projects that do not accept biospecimens or individual level data that is downloaded outside of the All of Us portal do not require additional review.  The following links provide additional information.
  • All of Us – introduction

1. GS access website
2. All of Us IRB Determination and letter access 
3. Informed consent to participate in All of Us 
4. Informed Consent Analysis

• Citation –  Megan Doerr, Sarah Moore, Vanessa Barone, Scott Sutherland, Brian M. Bot, Christine Suver & John Wilbanks (2021) Assessment of the All of Us research program’s informed consent process, AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12:2, 72-83, DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1847214

5. Restricted Tier and Controlled Tier Data – Single IRB