{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04295403165033911, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04295403165033911, 'mean_word_length': 5.148148148148148, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human research review committee requirements in medical journals.

PURPOSE
Independent ethical review committees safeguard participants in human research. The purpose of this study was to describe the current ethical guidelines for human research requirements in the Instructions to Authors of the English language medical journals previously studied in 1995.


METHODS
The instructions to authors of English language medicine journals from the Abridged Index Medicus were searched for any policies regarding guidance on the ethical treatment of human subjects in research.


RESULTS
More medical journals require independent ethics committee approval of human research now [84/101 (83%)] than 10 years ago [48/102 (47%) (P < 0.001)], and most journals continue to require that this disclosure appear in the manuscript [71/84 (85%) vs. then 37/48 (77%) (P=0.29)]. Fewer medical journal instructions to authors provide no ethical guidelines for human research now [8/101 (8%)] than 10 years ago [25/102 (24%) (P < 0.001)]. No journal required submission of the study approval letter or of the approved protocol.


CONCLUSIONS
Although medicine journals increasingly require disclosure statements of independent ethics committee approval for human research, they fail to verify such approval beyond taking authors for their word.