Whereas participant protection protocols are norms in medical research, they are only recently being adopted in social and behavioural sciences. This study examined human subject guidelines in the top 40 high-impact anthropology, business, and education research journals according to their impact factor as released in 2019. For these 120 journals, a unified classification framework was developed to capture the central elements of their ethical review and informed consent requirements. The findings suggest that the investigated journals do not view ethical review as an established norm for interview and survey studies. Only 10 (8%) journals required ethical review from all studies involving human participants. Informed consent was more frequently addressed, but none of the fields exhibited widely established guidelines similar to medical research journals. A total of 31 (26%) journals required informed consent from all studies involving human participants. There was little difference between the three disciplines investigated. Although the investigated journals represented social and behavioural sciences, their guidelines often concerned medical or intervention research with few requirements for interaction (e.g. survey) research. There is an opportunity for high-impact journals to establish norms for adoption by researchers and other journals.

中文翻译：

---

高影响力人类学、商业和教育研究期刊的伦理审查和知情同意指南

虽然参与者保护协议是医学研究的规范，但它们最近才被社会和行为科学采用。本研究根据 2019 年发布的影响因子检查了前 40 名高影响力人类学、商业和教育研究期刊中的人类学科指南。 对于这 120 种期刊，开发了一个统一的分类框架，以捕捉其伦理的核心要素。审查和知情同意要求。调查结果表明，被调查的期刊并未将伦理审查视为访谈和调查研究的既定规范。只有 10 (8%) 种期刊要求对涉及人类参与者的所有研究进行伦理审查。知情同意被更频繁地处理，但没有一个领域表现出类似于医学研究期刊的广泛确立的指导方针。共有 31 种（26%）期刊要求所有涉及人类参与者的研究知情同意。研究的三个学科之间几乎没有差异。尽管被调查的期刊代表了社会和行为科学，但它们的指南通常涉及医学或干预研究，对交互（例如调查）研究的要求很少。高影响力期刊有机会建立供研究人员和其他期刊采用的规范。他们的指南通常涉及医学或干预研究，对交互（例如调查）研究的要求很少。高影响力期刊有机会建立供研究人员和其他期刊采用的规范。他们的指南通常涉及医学或干预研究，对交互（例如调查）研究的要求很少。高影响力期刊有机会建立供研究人员和其他期刊采用的规范。