review-ethics

name	review-ethics
description	Checks ethical compliance in academic papers including IRB, consent, conflicts of interest, and data availability. Used by the ethics-reviewer agent.
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"audience":"ethics-reviewer","phase":"review","category":"ethics"}

Goal

Check ethical compliance of an academic paper, identifying any issues that could lead to rejection.

Prerequisites

Before starting the review, read:

1. The paper file (provided by the user)
2. context/<journal-slug>/scope-and-criteria.md (journal-specific ethics requirements)

Review Checklist

IRB/Ethics Board Approval

• Is institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval documented?
• Is the approval number or reference provided?
• Does the approval cover the specific study conducted?
• For studies not requiring IRB, is this justified?

Informed Consent

• Is informed consent documented for human subjects research?
• Is the consent process described (written, verbal, etc.)?
• Are consent forms available if required?
• For vulnerable populations, are additional protections described?

Animal Research Ethics

• For animal studies, is ethical approval documented?
• Are animal welfare guidelines followed (ARRIVE guidelines, etc.)?
• Is the 3R principle (Replace, Reduce, Refine) addressed?
• Are euthanasia methods described and humane?
• Mark as N/A if the paper does not involve animal research

Conflicts of Interest

• Is a conflicts of interest statement present?
• Are all potential COIs disclosed (financial, personal, professional)?
• Are there undisclosed COIs implied by author affiliations or funding?
• Is the funding source declared?

Data Availability & Sharing

• Is a data availability statement included?
• Are data deposited in a public repository (with DOI/accession number)?
• If data cannot be shared, are restrictions justified?
• Is analysis code available?

Authorship Ethics

• Does the author list seem appropriate for the contribution?
• Are author contributions described (CRediT taxonomy)?
• Is there evidence of honorary/gift authorship?
• Is corresponding author clearly designated?

Privacy & Anonymization

• Are participants properly anonymized?
• Is sensitive data protected (no identifiable information)?
• Are there privacy risks in data sharing?
• Is GDPR or relevant data protection legislation addressed?

Dual Use & Harm

• Could the research be misused or cause harm?
• Are dual-use concerns acknowledged?
• Is there a risk-benefit discussion?
• Are mitigation strategies proposed?

Rating Scale

• 5/5: Full ethical compliance with exemplary transparency
• 4/5: Ethical compliance with minor documentation gaps
• 3/5: Basic compliance with some concerns
• 2/5: Significant ethical gaps that need addressing
• 1/5: Major ethical violations

Special Considerations

• If an ethics dimension doesn't apply (e.g., no animal research), mark as N/A rather than giving a low score
• Absence of a required statement (e.g., no COI declaration) is itself an ethical concern
• Some journals have specific ethics requirements — check the scope context

Output Location

Save to <report-directory>/09-ethics-review.md