An IRB rejection can stall data collection for weeks. Most rejections come down to inconsistency — a consent form that doesn't match the recruitment script, or a protocol narrative that describes a different procedure than what's actually planned. Getting it right the first time saves real time.
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Protocol narrative | Detailed description of the study procedure, participants, and risks |
| Informed consent form | Plain-language explanation participants sign before taking part |
| Recruitment materials | Flyers, emails, or scripts used to invite participants |
| Data security plan | How identifiable data will be stored, protected, and eventually destroyed |
| Instruments | Surveys, interview guides, or other data collection tools, as final drafts |
Write the consent form last, after the protocol is finalized. Drafting consent language before the procedure is fully settled is a common source of the inconsistencies that trigger IRB revision requests. Lock the protocol, then derive every other document from it.
Consistent protocol, consent, and recruitment materials, written for actual review.
This varies significantly by institution and study type — exempt or expedited review can take days to a few weeks, full board review can take longer. We can't control your institution's timeline, but a well-prepared application avoids the revision cycles that add weeks.
Yes — send us the reviewer comments along with your original submission, and we address each point specifically rather than resubmitting unchanged material.
We can help draft documents that meet common ethical standards, but you'll need to confirm specific multi-site or international requirements with each relevant board, since these vary by jurisdiction.