Ethical Approval of Research: From Formality to the Foundation of Scientific Integrity

This editorial substantiates the necessity of ethical approval for research in food science and technology. Based on an analysis of the editorial policies of leading international journals (Journal of Food Science, Current Research in Food Science, Food Science and Technology International), the position of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and international regulatory documents (the Declaration of Helsinki, the 3R principles, and ARRIVE guidelines), it is demonstrated that the requirement for ethical review constitutes a universal standard for peer-reviewed journals publishing results of research involving human and animal subjects. Particular attention is given to the specificity of food sciences, where sensory analysis involving panellists, clinical nutritional interventions, and preclinical toxicological testing of food ingredients each require separate ethical assessment. The mandatory components of an ethical statement for manuscripts submitted to the journal are formulated. The article is addressed to authors, reviewers, and members of ethics committees.

1. Kosycheva, M.A., & Tikhonova, E.V. (2025). From protocol to publication: Why ethical approval is a mandatory step in research. Health, Food & Biotechnology, 7(4), 6-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107//hfb.2025.i4.s306

2. Fontanarosa, P. B., Bauchner, H., & Flanagin, A. (2024). Ethical issues in biomedical publication. In Ph. B. Fontanarosa, A. Flanagin, and Ph. Greenland (Eds.), Principles of scientific writing and biomedical publication: A JAMA editors guide for authors (pp. 283-295). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780197783030.003.0035

3. Kemp, S. E. (2008). Application of sensory evaluation in food research. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 43(9), 1507–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01780.x

4. McGrath, J. C., & Lilley, E. (2015). Implementing guidelines on reporting research using animals (ARRIVE etc.): New requirements for publication in BJP. British Journal of Pharmacology, 172(13), 3189–3193. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.12955

5. McNair, L. (2022). Ethical and regulatory oversight of clinical research: The role of the Institutional Review Board. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 247(7), 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/15353702221078216

6. Miller, F. G., & Rosenstein, D. L. (2002). Reporting of ethical issues in publications of medical research. The Lancet, 360(9342), 1326–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11346-8

7. Petkov, C. I., Flecknell, P., Murphy, K., Basso, M. A., Mitchell, A. S., Hartig, R., & Thompson-Iritani, S. (2022). Unified ethical principles and an animal research 'Helsinki' declaration as foundations for international collaboration. Current Research in Neurobiology, 3, 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crneur.2022.100060

8. Tannenbaum, J., & Bennett, B. T. (2015). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54(2), 120–132.