Structured case archive

Documenting IRB overreach with evidence.

IRB Watch tracks cases where researchers report that review boards exceeded their proper role, with documentation, transparency and context.

Browse cases Submit a case
4
published cases in our database
Click on "Submit a Case" to add your own.

How it works

A reviewed archive, not a complaint board.

1

Submit an encounter

Describe what happened and whether supporting documentation exists.

2

Editors review it

Submissions are screened for privacy, evidence quality, and fair context.

3

Cases enter the archive

Only reviewed cases are published with documentation levels and editorial notes.

Evidence standards

Documentation is part of every case.

Each published case receives an evidence level so readers can distinguish first-person accounts from cases supported by correspondence, public records, or multiple independent sources.

  1. Level 1first-person report only
  2. Level 2report plus notes/emails
  3. Level 3redacted IRB correspondence
  4. Level 4public documents or coverage
  5. Level 5multiple independent sources

Researcher resources Coming soon

Tools for responding to review creep.

Practical materials for researchers who need to document, interpret, or respectfully challenge an IRB determination.

Appeal templates

Sample language for respectfully challenging determinations.

Exempt research guide

Plain-language notes on exempt categories and minimal-risk arguments.

Not-human-subjects research

Guidance for public data, archival records, organizations, and elite interviews.

Policy library

OHRP guidance, Common Rule excerpts, and disciplinary association statements.

FAQ

Common questions about IRB Watch.

The archive is designed to document review-board overreach while protecting submitters, institutions, and readers from incomplete or misleading claims.

IRB Watch focuses on cases where a board appears to go beyond its role of protecting human research participants. Examples include requiring review for work that is not human-subjects research, imposing broad institutional risk controls unrelated to participant welfare, or delaying minimal-risk research without a clear regulatory basis.

No. Editors review submissions for documentation, privacy concerns, relevance, and fair context before anything appears in the public archive. Some submissions may be held for more information, summarized only in aggregate, or declined.

Yes. Submitters can request confidentiality or limited attribution. Contact information is used for editorial follow-up and is not published unless the submitter explicitly agrees to be named.

Determination letters, email correspondence, protocol comments, appeal outcomes, public policies, and timelines are especially helpful. Please remove sensitive information before uploading documents.

Yes. Published case pages include a response path for IRBs or institutions. Responses are reviewed before publication and should identify the case, explain the institution's position, and avoid confidential participant or personnel details.

No. IRB Watch is an archive and research resource. It can help researchers compare cases and gather context, but it is not a substitute for legal counsel, institutional policy review, or discipline-specific ethics guidance.