Skip to main content
Start of main content.

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

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.