How to submit a human research ethics application

What is an ethics application?

An ethics application is required for all new human research projects conducted as part of Bond University's research activities. The purpose of the application is to ensure that research involving people is ethically designed, conducted, and managed, and that the rights, wellbeing, and interests of participants are protected.

Under the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025), research is assessed according to the level or risk posed to participants. Low risk research is research where the only foreseeable risks are minor, such as inconvenience, discomfort, or a brief burden on participants. Greater than low risk research involves foreseeable risks of harm, including physical, psychological, social, cultural, legal, or economic harm.

For more information, please refer to the National Statement.

Important: Researchers should not assume which review pathway applies to their project. The final determination of the project’s risk level and review pathway is made by the HREC Chair (or delegate) following submission and assessment of the application.

Why do I need to submit a Human Research Ethics Application (HREA)?

All human research projects require submission of a Human Research Ethics Application (HREA). The HREA enables the Committee to assess whether the project meets the definition of human research, determine the appropriate ethics review pathway, and ensure the research complies with applicable ethical and governance requirements.

Submission of an HREA does not indicate that a project is high risk or complex. Rather, it provides the information necessary for the Committee to assess the level of risk, determine the appropriate review process, and ensure that participant welfare, consent, privacy, confidentiality and other ethical considerations have been adequately addressed.

The HREA also enables the University to maintain appropriate oversight of human research conducted under its auspices and to fulfil its responsibilities under the National Statement, including projects that may initially appear to be low risk. The HREA allows the committee to determine the appropriate ethics review pathway and maintain oversight of research conducted under its support.

This requirement applies to new human research projects. Projects with existing ethics approval from another HREC should instead submit a prior approval application.

Retaining a copy of your application

Completed applications remain available in the HREA system for 90 days after completion. After this period, they are removed from the system. Instructions for saving a copy of your application for long-term storage and future access are provided in Section 2.3.6 of the HREA How-to Guide.

Writing for ethics review

Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) applications are reviewed by a diverse panel of members with varying disciplinary backgrounds. Documentation should therefore be written in a manner that does not assume specialised knowledge of a particular field.

Researchers should provide sufficient background, context, and plain-language explanations of the study, including its procedures, terminology, methodologies, and any foreseeable risks to participants, researchers, communities, or institutions. The application should contain enough information to enable an informed assessment of the ethical considerations and risks associated with the project.

Clear, accessible, and comprehensive documentation helps facilitate an efficient ethics review process.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ETHICS APPLICATIONS

Each ethics application is assessed on its own merits and reviewed based on the information provided in the current submission.

Researchers may refer to previous or related ethics applications where relevant; however, references to earlier applications should not be used in place of providing the information required for review of the current project.

Researchers should not assume that reviewers are familiar with previous submissions, approvals, amendments, or related projects. Committee membership and reviewers may vary between applications, and the volume of applications reviewed means prior applications may not be readily accessible during the review process.

Previous applications may be referenced to provide context, but all information necessary to assess the ethical acceptability of the project should be included in the current application or provided as supporting documentation.

As a guiding principle, every ethics application should be capable of being understood and assessed independently of any previous submission.

Application process

Step 1: Complete your HREA and prepare supporting documentation

Create a new human research ethics application and complete all sections. Please refer to the HREA help guide on how to create an application and upload documents.

Students must:

Include their supervisor as the Chief Investigator
Share the application with the supervisor for review and sign-off before submission
Ensure the supervisor has completed and signed all required declarations

Prepare Supporting Documentation

Use only the current Bond-approved templates when preparing your application. Applications submitted using outdated or non-approved templates may be returned for amendment prior to review.

Before submitting your application, ensure that all required supporting documents are included and that any documents requiring signatures have been appropriately completed and signed. Using the correct templates and providing complete documentation will help avoid delays in the review process.

Download all required supporting documents (refer to the attachment checklist), and complete, as applicable:

Bond University Protocol Form
Participant information sheet and consent form (PICF)
Recruitment materials (e.g. emails, social media posts, advertisements, text messages)
Survey instrument(s)
Interview or focus group guides
Data collection tool(s)
Authorship Agreement (preferred), or Authorship Principles Statement (refer to Authorship Guidelines). At least one of these documents must be submitted with all ethics applications.
Letters of support and/or site approvals (if applicable)

Once your HREA application has been completed in the system, download:

The ZIP folder.
The OMNI file.

These files must be uploaded with your submission in Pure.

Step 2: Create an ethics application in Pure

Under ‘Ethical Review’, select ‘Application‘ to complete the following:

Title: Title of the project. Ensure the title entered in Pure matches the HREA documentation.
HREA Application ID: Enter the HREA Application ID generated by the HREA system. This will be used as the ethics application reference number. Ensure the HREA Application ID entered in Pure matches the HREA documentation.
Submission date: Ethics application submission date
Persons: "Add Person" - Ensure all members of the research team are entered in Pure, including external collaborators and student researchers. A Bond University staff member must be listed as the chief investigator (select only one person as Chief Investigator).
Add managing organisational unit: Faculty
Add documentation: ZIP Folder – Upload under ‘HREA Application Bundle’. Supporting documentation: If you have not already added this within the HREA system and they are not part of your ZIP Folder, upload all participant-facing documents, study instruments, approvals and other supporting documents in the relevant document category. OMNI File – Upload under ‘HREA Omni File’.

Important: before submitting

While preparing your application, leave the application status as ‘Entry in Progress’. This will allow you to continue editing the application and uploading documents. Once the status is changed to ‘Under Review’ and the application is saved, researchers can no longer make changes to the application.

Only change the status to 'Under Review' when:
All application documents have been uploaded.

All research team members have been added.

The application has been reviewed for completeness.

The application is ready to be formally submitted to the research ethics office.

Step 3: Submit for review

Quick Checklist

Before submitting, confirm that you have:

Completed the HREA.
Downloaded the ZIP folder and OMNI file.
Completed the Bond protocol form.
Used current Bond templates.
All relevant forms are signed.
Uploaded all supporting documents.
Included all research team members.

Change the application status to ‘Under Review’ and select ‘Save’.

This notifies the research ethics office that your ethics application is ready for assessment.

After submission

The research ethics office will undertake an initial compliance review.
Following the initial compliance review, the application will be sent for faculty endorsement.
Following faculty endorsement, the HREC Chair (or delegate) will determine the appropriate ethics review pathway for the project based on the information provided and the level of foreseeable risk.
Additional information may be requested if required.
Once risk assessment is completed, the process is as follows
Low risk applications: Applications determined to be low risk may be reviewed outside scheduled committee meetings, allowing for a faster turnaround.
Greater than low risk applications: Applications determined to be greater than low risk will be referred to the next available HREC meeting for review and decision.
Applicants will be advised of the outcome via email from [email protected].
Do not commence research until you have received formal written confirmation of approval.
If additional information, clarifications or amendments are required during the review process, please refer to the How to respond to ethics review feedback.

Researchers remain responsible for:

Ensuring that all information provided in the application is accurate and complete.
Complying with any applicable data custodian, legislative, regulatory, or contractual requirements.
Managing and storing research data in accordance with Bond University policies and procedures.
Monitoring the project throughout its lifecycle to ensure it continues to meet the conditions under which the approval was granted.

Common reasons applications are returned for revision

The research team listed in Pure does not match the research team listed in the HREA.
Supporting documents contain tracked changes, comments, or draft text.
Non-approved or outdated templates have been used.
For student projects, the supervisor is not listed as the chief investigator.
The application status has not been changed to ‘Under Review’.
Additional supporting documents required for the project have not been uploaded.