Ethics review for insect research in the UK: Patterns, drivers, and perceived impact on research quality and process
Data files
Jun 12, 2026 version files 67.41 KB
-
README.md
8.57 KB
-
Supplemental_File_3_codebook.xlsx
31.31 KB
-
Supplemental_File_5_Anonymised_Responses.xlsx
27.53 KB
Abstract
This dataset contains anonymised survey responses from researchers involved in entomological research, examining attitudes toward insect welfare and institutional ethics review processes. The archive includes (1) the anonymised survey response dataset in spreadsheet format and (2) a detailed codebook describing variable names, response options, coding structure and data organisation.
The response dataset includes demographic variables (e.g., career stage, years of experience, primary research area, institution type), research focus (including insect taxa studied), and responses relating to institutional ethics processes (e.g., submission behaviour, confidence navigating ethics applications, perceived value of ethics review, perceived influence on research quality, feedback received, and factors influencing submission decisions). Most variables are categorical, including ordinal Likert-scale responses, nominal multi-response selections stored across multiple columns, and anonymised free-text comments.
The accompanying codebook enables accurate interpretation and reuse by detailing variable definitions, factor levels, and data structure. All data have been fully anonymised prior to archiving. Direct identifiers have been removed, and open-text responses have been reviewed to minimise re-identification risk. The dataset contains no sensitive personal data and is suitable for public reuse under the repository’s standard terms.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.vq83bk484
Description of the data and file structure
These data were collected through an online survey of researchers involved in entomological research. The survey was designed to examine attitudes toward insect welfare and institutional ethics review processes, including experiences with ethics application submission, perceived value of ethics review, confidence navigating ethics procedures, and perceived impacts on research quality.
The questionnaire consisted primarily of structured categorical items, along with open-text comment fields. Participants also provided demographic information such as career stage, years of experience in entomological research, primary research area, and institution type.
The survey was distributed to members of the entomological research community via professional networks. Participation was voluntary, and responses were anonymised prior to archiving. The resulting dataset underpins all analyses, tables and figures presented in the associated manuscript submitted to Ecological Entomology.
Files and variables
File: Supplemental_File_3_codebook.xlsx
Description:
This workbook contains the qualitative coding frameworks developed during thematic analysis of open-text survey responses. References to "AWERB" in respondent comments refer to the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body.
The workbook contains two worksheets:
Worksheet 1: Quality of Research - Do Ethics
This worksheet contains the coding framework used to analyse responses to the question:
"In your opinion, how does the ethics application process influence the quality of research?"
Themes, codes, definitions and illustrative anonymised quotations are provided for respondents who reported submitting ethics applications and those who reported not submitting ethics applications.
Worksheet 2: Additional Comments
This worksheet contains the coding framework used to analyse responses to the final open-text survey question:
"Please share any additional comments or insights regarding your experience with, or attitudes about, the ethics application process in entomological research."
Themes, codes, definitions and illustrative anonymised quotations are provided for respondents who reported submitting ethics applications and those who reported not submitting ethics applications.
Variables
Theme: High-level thematic category identified during qualitative analysis.
Code: Specific analytical code assigned to segments of text within a theme.
Definition: Description of the code and its analytical meaning.
Examples from those that do ethics review: Illustrative anonymised excerpts from respondents who reported submitting ethics applications.
Examples from those that do not do ethics review: Illustrative anonymised excerpts from respondents who reported not submitting ethics applications.
File: Supplemental_File_5_Anonymised_Responses.xlsx
Description:
This file contains the anonymised structured survey response dataset. Each row represents one respondent. Each column represents the survey question response. The dataset includes demographic characteristics, research focus, and responses relating to institutional ethics review processes.
Missing values are represented by blank cells. Blank cells occur where a respondent did not answer a question, where a question was not presented due to survey routing logic, or where information was removed during anonymisation. No values have been imputed or inferred by the authors.
Variables
- Respondent ID (randomised, non-identifiable)
- What is your current position? (text)
- How many years have you been involved in entomological research? (drop down, numerical)
- Is your research currently based in the UK? (yes/no)
- Do you currently submit ethical applications for your work with insects to your internal ethics review committee (AWERB)? (categorical)
- When did you start submitting mandatory ethics application for your research involving insects? (numerical)
- Roughly how many ethics applications have you submitted in the past year? (including those of students where supervisory oversight was provided) (categorical; grouped count ranges)
- How confident do you feel about the ethics application process? (scale)
- How confident are you that you can deliver what is expected of you when completing an ethics application? (scale)
Feedback received from internal ethics review committee (multi-response; one column per option):
- Positive comments
- Suggestions for improvement of study methodology
- Rejections and reasons provided
- No feedback received
Resources or support that would help with ethics applications (multi-response; one column per option):
- Undergraduate curricular materials on insect welfare
- Training on the ethical use of animals in research, with application to insects
- Guidance on how to develop an ethical application for submission to ethics panels (AWERBs)
- Greater research on insect welfare
- Information on insect biology for ethics panel members (AWERB members)
Factors influencing the decision to submit an ethics application (multi-response; one column per option):
- Institutional requirements
- Personal ethical beliefs
- To ensure the welfare of research subjects
- Application of best practice methodologies and standardisation of research
- To receive feedback on study design from an ethics panel
- Grant requirements
- Requirement to publish
- To address concerns about public perception of research practices
- How valuable do you consider ethics applications to be in your entomological research? (scale)
- Have any of your practices changed as a result of the ethics application process? (categorical)
- In your opinion, how does the ethics application process influence the quality of research? (scale)
Most categorical responses allowed free-text comments afterwards to capture further details.
Code/software
The data files in this archive are provided in Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) format.
To view and use the data, the following software may be used:
- Microsoft Excel (any recent version supporting .xlsx files), or
- LibreOffice Calc (free, open-source software), or
- Any other spreadsheet-compatible software capable of reading .xlsx files.
No specialised or proprietary statistical software is required to open or view the dataset.
Access information
Other publicly accessible locations of the data:
-
The anonymised survey response dataset and qualitative codebook are also publicly available as supplementary materials associated with the preprint of the manuscript on bioRxiv:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.21.683772v1
Data was derived from the following sources:
- The data were collected directly from survey participants by the authors through an original online survey. The dataset was not derived from any external or third-party data sources. No licensed datasets were used in generating this archive.
Human subjects data
This dataset contains de-identified survey responses from researchers in the field of entomology. The study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the intended use of anonymised data for research and publication purposes prior to providing consent.
Participants provided informed consent before completing the survey. The consent information stated that anonymised responses may be published and shared in the public domain as part of academic dissemination.
Prior to archiving, all direct identifiers were removed. No names, contact details, IP addresses, or institutional identifiers linked to individual respondents are included in the dataset. Institutional information has been categorised (e.g., institution type) rather than retained as identifiable organisation names. Open-text responses were reviewed to remove or generalise potentially identifying information. The dataset does not contain sensitive personal data and cannot reasonably be used to identify individual participants.
The archived dataset complies with Dryad’s human subjects data standards for publication.