I believe this varies from institution to institution and it's up to individual researchers to familiarise themselves with their local rules. I have seen many studies that stated they required no ethical clearance because they were anonymised questionnaires, were meta-analyses or re-analyses of existing data or were strictly observational studies of animal subjects. However IRB approval is also ideally a measure to weed out badly-designed studies as well as ones which involve an unacceptable risk of harm to human subjects so there are good reasons to subject every study to IRB scrutiny.

Loopholes sometimes exist. I am aware of one case where a lecturer in an Economics department, which had blanket exemption from the need for ethics approval because of the nature of their usual work, carried out a study which was probably more in the wheelhouse of Psychology and caused a bit of a stir. The whole story is bigger and more complicated than that but it illustrates how rules can vary and sometimes be imperfect.

Speaking about what ought to be rather than what is, my personal view is that I am strongly against any research being exempt from IRB approval because I think all researchers should give an independent body a complete explanation of their methodology and primary outcome before they begin their work and IRB approval is an excellent time to do this. Even if there is no risk of harm to the subjects there is still a risk of unethical behaviour like changing the primary outcome after the fact or failing to publish some results which we should try to guard against.

This kind of research should be exempted from IRB approval .. In some institutions they are unnecessarily so strict about no risk and minimal risk research studies 

A usual rule of thumb is that if you intend to publish the findings, you need IRB approval.

I hope so.....Any research related to human subject should go under the review of IRB..... you can have the NIH free certification course for more clear answer:

https://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php

Some research is exempt from the need for approval under federal regulations.  See 45 CFR 46.101.  Exempt research includes surveys that are anonymous or, if not anonymous, will not put the subject at risk and research of records and pathological specimens that are anonymous or have been made public. However, I strongly recommend that you check with your own IRB, since local IRBs can be stricter than what is required by federal regs.  Even if review is required, however, there is a good chance that it could be handled by expedited review.  The OHRP website is quite helpful  and provides access to relevant regulations.

Martin, an excellent comment. I wanted this. Many thanks.

Also thanks to the rest of commenters. In response to the idea of "always getting an IRB approval", should I say:

Seeking an IRB approval is very good. But sometimes there are limitations in doing so. For example, not all IRBs are perfect. The IRB itself might be incompetent or not knowledgeable enough. For example, as a dental student, I wanted to evaluate the effect of hypnosis. The stupid IRB even did not allow me to chose that subject. They told me "you are a dentist and cannot research hypnosis" because they did not know hypnosis. Another example of IRB incompetence is that a good methodology is proposed, and a bad IRB converts the good methodology into a weak one. Irrelevant interventions of an under-educated IRB panel are actually worse than not having an IRB review.

Also, there is some chance that at some IRBs, the subject is stolen, or at least its modifications get stolen by some IRB members (yes we have experienced this stuff).

Thirdly, it involves a lot of politics. You need an IRB approval, you have to involve this or that person into the research proposal, otherwise they will make things difficult for you. Sometimes they clearly ask you to put their names or put at least one person from their department in your research, in order to approve the project. (The added person is not supposed to help!) Many dentistry research projects are done by a single person or maximum 2 people. The rest of article authors are more or less parasites. Another example about politics is that some people are enemies. You ask for help from this one, the other one would reject your proposal, or make its progress very difficult.

4. Even a non-biased and well-educated IRB has its own limitation: it slows down works that would be done very fast otherwise. This is essential when there might be risk. But in the case of "no-risk" projects, it would be a pain. So I tend to seek IRB approvals only when there is any potential risk. And am very glad for Martin's comment.

This is an interesting question for me because I want do do some research for a book I'm writing. The problem is I'm not associated with a university or even a  hospital where I have access to an ethic review board. From what I have found out, I have some latitude to do minimal risk research (like anonymous questionnaires). This answer comes partly from my publisher and partly from just asking around. IRB (or in Canada HREB) review boards must be applied in certain settings to validate any human research done in that setting. As a health practitioner, aren't we encouraged to be research practitioners to further our profession's knowledge base and help make our practice evidence based? Not every piece of research needs formal approval or it would degrade professional activity. As a dentist, I'm sure you have to follow regulations to use hypnosis at all. If you add some kind of tracking and feedback mechanism to your use of hypnosis, that is a kind of research and it improves your practice. When the research is not part of your practice but has external participants things get more complicated. You have to keep in mind the ethical regulations of your profession and what would be expected to validate the research if you were to publish it. IRB/HREB approval adds a level of bureaucracy to research that, as you pointed out not only slows down the process but is frustrating and even undermining. If your institutional environment and professional regulations don't require it, and in your professional judgement the risk is minimal, and you run it by another  knowledgeable person , and you document your reasoning, you should be OK. 

I ran my idea for research past a university professor in the field of my interest.

This was his answer. However, he also added that because of his institutional environment he could only be part of the project in any way without ethics approval if the research was purely archival and did not involve living participants in any way, shape, or form (including anonymous questionnaires, which have to be completed by participants drawn from a pool of living persons who could potentially be harmed in some way).

In short, there are no black and white answers unless your situation requires them or the potential risk is more than minimal to the point of non existence. Hypnosis for dental patients does not sound like low risk research, but the method  is in the scope of your professional practice. You know what regulations must be followed and what safety precautions must be in place. If the practice you will be doing research on is outside the scope of your regular practice, you have to be particularly cautious. Document everything and good luck!

Ideally all of these should have IRB approval. Unless its a review study

What is ideal about not having access to an IRB when you want to include an oppressed group in some kind of perspective-gathering and it can be seen as research? Is it OK to be less than ideal?

Gordon Alan Gates Sometimes a person isn't affiliated to any universities. Sometimes, he finds the IRB quite undereducated (given their CVs and zero knowledge of research or ethics) and not qualified to modify his research methodology. Sometimes, a person fears that some of the panel members can steal his idea. I myself have been a victim of academic theft for a few times. Like this very today, in which someone who had stolen my fresh and new idea reserved for my own thesis defended his thesis. I wanted to do exactly the same thing, but I made a mistake and talked to a professor about it -- who stole it. [please don't quote me - the last sentences are to be deleted]

That's terrible Vahid! (And ironically unethical). IRB boards are not always available unless you are a student or doing research through an institution or have a big budget. This makes research a privileged activity, and that's too bad.

Maybe you should mail yourself your ideas before you talk to anyone about them.

Good luck with your work. You obviously have great ideas that need protection.

Gord

Thanks dear Gord (Gordon Alan Gates ) for your nice compliments and sympathy. I had e-mailed a detailed abstract of my idea and its methodology to the university, for our admission interview. And he knew that I have all evidences showing it is mine. Yet, he didn't care! He is an important figure in our field, and if I want to confront him, he will later cause big problems for me and my career. [please don't quote me - the last sentences are to be deleted]

Kind regards

Vahid

Dr Qaiser Suleman ChatGPT