Ethics Procedure#

This section outlines the key ethics-related procedural steps that a research project typically goes through before being approved at a conference.

1. Study Idea#

First of all, a good study requires a good idea. Already at this stage, researchers should reflect on the potential ethical implication of their work and their methods, including possible harm and benefits for any stakeholders involved (e.g., users, research team members, etc.), and whether any risks for harm can be minimized through methodological changes or safeguards.

2. IRB / Ethics Board Assessment (Optional)#

Depending on the institute, jurisdiction, and research idea, consultation with an Ethics Board or Institutional Review Board (IRB) may also be required.

Certain types of studies, especially those involving human participants, require formal approval by an IRB or an equivalent ethics board. In the United States, IRB review is generally mandatory for human-subjects research, whereas requirements may differ across countries and institutions; researchers should therefore consult local policies to ensure compliance.

Ethics boards typically request a detailed protocol describing the study goals, data collection procedures, participant recruitment (if applicable), potential risks and benefits, consent mechanisms, and planned data protection measures. The goal of this process is to ensure that the study adheres to fundamental ethical principles¹ such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, and that any risks are justified and appropriately mitigated.

However, due to factors such as limited domain expertise, these boards are often not sufficiently equipped to reliably assess the ethical implications of S&P research. They deal as a first guideline but researchers must reason about the ethics of their work beyond ensuring institutional compliance.

3. Study Execution#

Once the study has been approved (if required), the research can be conducted. This phase includes implementing methodology, collecting and processing data, evaluating results, and writing the findings down to a paper.

Throughout execution, researchers should keep an eye out for unanticipated risks or ethical concerns and adjust procedures when necessary to prevent harm. For transparency, any such changes should be documented in the paper (e.g., in the ethical considerations section) so that future researchers can learn from. In some cases, also the ethics boards wants to get informed about any changes!

4. Paper Submission#

After completing the study and the paper is submitted to a conference or journal. Besides the typical sections of study such as motivation, background, methodology, limitations, results, and discussion, papers today should also contain a section about ethical considerations. Many venues require specific policies and offer an extra page outside of the page limit for such considerations (see the Conference Guidelines).

5. Peer Review Process#

The program committee (PC) evaluates the submission with respect to technical soundness, novelty, and relevance. Increasingly, however, peer review also includes scrutiny of ethical aspects such as the potential for harm of a chosen methodology, compliance with applicable policies (e.g., IRB approval), downstream implications of the publication and whether the researchers followed ethical community norms(e.g., coordinated vulnerability disclosure). In case, reviewers have uncertainties about the ethical acceptability of the submission, they may flag the paper for additional oversight by a conference-internal Research Ethics Committee (REC) or other decision-makers (see the Conference Guidelines).

6. Ethics Revision (Only if flagged for ethics)#

If reviewers identify potential ethical concerns, the paper may be escalated to a specialized Research Ethics Committee (REC). This committee evaluates the identified risks in more depth and may consider issues such as missing CVD, lack of informed consent, disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups, or dual-use concerns.

Based on this assessment, the REC may follow up with the authors to request clarifications, additional context, or revisions to address the identified concerns. In many cases, ethical concerns can be resolved through revisions; however the REC may also recommend rejection if risks or harm was not properly addressed. The final publication decision ultimately rests with the program chairs.

7. Publication#

If accepted, the work is published and becomes part of the scientific record 🎉🎉🎉

The publication of research and its results can generate substantial benefits for the research community, as well as for society, for example by improving transparency about specific topics, informing policy and decision makers, or providing tips for more secure and privacy-friendly systems. But publications may also introduce downstream risks such as misuse or unintended harm. As mentioned earlier, this should already be considered in the beginning.

References#