Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Reactive arthritis (ReA) is an often neglected disease that received some attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence that infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to “reactive” arthritis. However, this does not follow the classical definition of ReA that limits the organisms leading to this condition. Also, there is no recommendation by any international society on the management of ReA during the current pandemic. Thus, a survey was conducted to gather information about how modern clinicians across the world approach ReA. Methods: An e-survey was carried out based on convenient sampling via social media platforms. Twenty questions were validated on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and management of ReA. These also included information on post-COVID-19 arthritis. Duplicate entries were prevented and standard guidelines were followed for reporting internet-based surveys. Results: There were 193 respondents from 24 countries. Around one-fifth knew the classical definition of ReA. Nearly half considered the triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis and asymmetric oligoarthritis a “must” for diagnosis of ReA. Other common manifestations reported include enthesitis, dermatitis, dactylitis, uveitis, and oral or genital ulcers. Threefourths opined that no test was specific for ReA. Drugs for ReA were non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, intra-articular injections, and conventional disease-modifying agents with less than 10% supporting biological use. Conclusion The survey brought out the gap in existing concepts of ReA. The current definition needs to be updated. There is an unmet need for consensus recommendations for the management of ReA, including the use of biologicals.