RECTOR
Provisions of the Rector No 2/2020. (V. 26.)
on setting up the CUB Ad Hoc Research Ethics Committee,
and on issuing research ethics permissions
(transitional provisions)
In my role defined in Subsections a) and c) of Section 21(2) and pursuant to the mandate conferred on me by
Section 21 (7) and (8) of the Rules of Operation and Organisation (ROO), in order to preserve the independence,
impartiality, integrity, credibility of scientific research for those involved in research at the University as well as
to ensure their ethical behaviour and uttermost professional fairness , I hereby issue the following provision s
(hereinafter: Provisions) for a transitional period lasting until the adoption of the Research Ethics Policy:
1.§ Scope of the Provisions
(1) The scope of the Provisions shall cover all research projects that are carried out from domestic or EU support,
grant source (hereinafter research project) in which research is perfor med by a person who has an
employment status with CUB (researcher, lecturer, grantee or doctoral student in a research group, student,
guest researcher, guest lecturer in a project team) and either research ethics issues arise or compliance with
such standards is to be considered irrespective of whether the researcher works individually, as part of a CUB
group, or jointly with third parties.
(2) The Provisions shall also apply to research projects for which an inquiry is made by an external researcher/a
data access inquiry is made with respect to any person who has an e mployment or student status with CUB
or with respect to their personal data.
(3) The scope of the Provisions shall cover any persons acting as contributors, subjects in the research projects,
persons dealing with research ethics issues as set out herein.
(4) The Provisions shall define the scope of persons entitled to issue research ethics permissions as well as the
procedure itself.
2.§ Ad hoc Research Ethics Committee
(1) The Ad Hoc Research Ethics Committee (hereinafter „Committee”) is an advisory body to the Rector as well
as his decision-making body in individual authorisation matters. It shall report to the Rector.
(2) Powers of the Committee:
a) may take a position in general matters of research ethics and has a right to make proposals to the Rector
with regard to setting up standards.;
b) has decision making power in individual research ethics authorisation procedures;
c) has consultative rights and a right to make proposals to the Rector with regard to complaints submitted
by parties prejudiced in the research project.
d) The Chairperson of the Committee shall be the Vice-Rector for Research, its two members shall be entrusted
by the Rector on a permanent or ad hoc basis. The Committee shall perform its duties within the scope defined
in the terms of reference issued by the Rector (e.g. in the case of entrusting permanent members, in the event
such a person is prevented from attending, or for a specific research field).
e) The Committee may primarily have recourse to experts defined for the relevant individual authorisation
2/2020. (V. 26.) számú rektori rendelkezés
- 2 -
procedure (such as experts from other research field s, data protection experts). The legal background
documents and support shall be provided to the Committee by the Economic and Labour Law Services. The
experts shall not have voting rights at the meetings of the Committee.
3.§ The Committee’s Tasks and Powers
(1) The Committee’s task shall be to draw up the draft Research Ethics Policy in co-operation with the members
of the invited working group.
(2) It shall make proposals to the Rector with regard to setting up standards in research ethics matters.
(3) It shall examine individual issues of research ethics, including
a) it shall conduct individual research ethics authorisation procedures
aa) in case of research projects carried out at CUB financed from a source specified in Section 1(1) above,
ab) in case of research applications with the participation of CUB jointly with other institutions, legal
entities performing research,
ac) in case of research projects initiated pursuant to Section 1(2) above;
b) it shall have the right to issue resolutions on the basis of an inquiry from any university citizen, in any
research ethics matter for which the observation of research ethics standards is to be considered;
c) it shall have the right to comment on and make proposals to the Rector with regard to complaints.
(4) Within its powers, the Committee shall be entitled to decide to issue or refuse research authorisat ions with
respect to the submitted applications , or in cases set out in Section 1 (2) above, to recognize t he research
ethics permission of one of the institutions involved in the research project if
a) the leader of the research project is an employee of CUB an d holder of a doctoral (PhD, CSc ,
DSc) degree or its Professor Emeritus, Emerita;
b) in cases set out in Section 1(2) above, the researcher’s, the research project leader’s scholarly
performance at another institution is verified.
(5) Research projects in which the researcher, the leader of the research project do not meet the criteria defined
in a) or b) above shall not be accepted.
(6) Within its powers, the Committee shall be entitled to inspect authorized university research projects either at
random or upon being notified. In this context, the Committee is entitled to consult the research
documentation, to raise both written and oral questions. The findings of the inspection shall be drawn up in a
report addressed to the Rector. The leader of the research project, professional leader or any other person
involved in the audited project shall be obliged to co-operate with the Committee or any person invited by the
Committee to carry out the inspection. It shall initiate an ethical procedure as a result of the inspection in case
it identifies non-compliant behaviour with the criteria laid down in the research ethics authorization.
(7) The Committee shall seek to raise the ethical awareness of the university’ s researchers through providing
clear and timely information and offering constructive discussions, in particular during individual authorization
procedures and the consultations leading up to the drafting of the CUB Research Ethics Policy.
4.§ The Committee’s Rules of Procedure
(1) The Committee shall hold its meetings as necessary either on its own initiative or as required by the urgency
of the submitted matters, but not later than within 8 working days of the receipt of the submission by the
secretariat during term-time and within 30 working days thereof in the summer break. The meeting shall be
convened by the Chairperson via e-mail 3 days prior to the meeting, specifying the time, the pla ce and the
agenda of the meeting, and if possible attaching the proposals.
(2) The Committee may also deliberate electronically if necessary, or a member, expert may join the face-to-face
meeting electronically via the session created by the Chairperson on the online collaboration platform (e.g.
2/2020. (V. 26.) számú rektori rendelkezés
- 3 -
MS-Teams). In such cases the members of the Committee shall decide on the proposal tabled by the
Chairperson via e-mail.
(3) The Committee’s procedure may be initiated by the Rector, the Chairperson or a member of the Committee,
or a natural person falling within the substantive scope of the present Provisions via e-mail or on paper in the
format specified in Subsection (4) below by defining the request in accurate terms, its grounds as well as by
describing the circumstances.
(4) The Committee shall be entitled to d efine and publish on the web page of the Vice-Rector for Research the
formal and substantive requirements that submissions sent to the secretariat of the Vice-Rector for Research
should meet (e.g. confidential treatment can be ensured by „password-protected compression”). In case the
submission is not identifiable, it shall not be included in the agenda by the Committee.
(5) Within any of its mandated powers, the Committee may have recourse to experts. If personal data are
processed within the framework of the research project which is the subject of the research ethics
authorization or if this cannot be clearly established, a data protection officer shall be involved.
(6) The sessions of the Committee shall not be public, however a public session may be held on the Chairperson’s
or a member’s initiative and upon the decision of the Committee . The person serving as secretary to the
Committee may take part in the closed session as well as the invited expert during the discussion of the
relevant agenda item.
(7) The secretariat of the Vice-Rector for Research shall serve as secretary to the Committee.
5.§ Decision-making
(1) A quorum shall exist if all the three Committee members are present (in person or electronically) during the
discussion of the given agenda item.
(2) During the discussion of the given agenda item, the Committee shall take decisions in an open vote, with the
unanimity of those present with voting rights.
(3) If necessary, the Committee may request additional information or modifications (hereinafter request) from
the applicant no more than twice by setting a deadline of three working days and if necessary, it may even
hear the applicant. It shall summon the applicant via e -mail and mobile phone. In case the applicant fails to
appear, the Committee shall take its decision on the basis of available documents.
(4) The Committee shall decide on authorisation matters within 60 days of the submission of the application. Such
deadline shall be extended by the time limit set for responding to the request and due to the hearing.
(5) The decisions ( resolutions, decisions in authorization matters) of the Commi ttee shall be issued by its
Chairperson. The secretariat of the Committee’s Chairperson shall publish the resolutions and decisions taken
in authorization matters on the research page of the university’s website.
(6) Any decision taken in research ethics authorization matters shall be binding for every research project leader,
researcher and persons involved in the research project, no derogations shall be made. Should the applicant
fail to comply with the request or complies with it only partially, the Committee may reject the application .
There shall be no right of appeal against the decision.
(7) Any party prejudiced during the research project may seize the Committee as a complainant. The Committee
shall deliver its opinion on matters submitted by the complainant and shall forward it to the Re ctor together
with its proposal. The Rector in turn shall decide on defining and launching any additional procedure.
(8) In the event of an infringement pursuant to Section 6(11) below, the Committee shall, within 8 working days
of becoming aware thereof, make a proposal to the Rector to initiate the ethics review.
(9) The Committee shall record and archive each decision – resolutions and decisions made in individual cases.
2/2020. (V. 26.) számú rektori rendelkezés
- 4 -
(10) Administrative support to the secretariat of the Committee shall be ensured by the Economic and Labour Law
Services.
6.§ The Process of Research Ethics Reviewing
(1) The launch of any research project involving direct or indirect collection of data (data recording) from human
participants and their analysis shall be subject to a research ethics self-review procedure, to holding a permission
and to meeting the requirements formulated therein.
(2) The following research forms shall be subject to obtaining a permission:
a) direct data collection from participants (in instances of intervening and non-intervening participation), and
b) indirect data provision with regard to a person connected to the participant (e.g. parent provides data on child,
superior on subordinate).
(3) The Committee shall be entitled to issue research ethics permissions in line with the ethical principles of social
science research.
(4) Prior to launching any research project, a self-review along the principles of social science research shall be
undertaken for any research project involving human participants. By completing the Review Questionnaire
attached hereto as Annex 1 and by condu cting an ethical risk analysis the researcher, the l eader of the
research project shall assess whether the research is acceptable from the viewpoint of research ethics,
whether he/she has made every effort during the planning of the research to ensure that the research
participants are not exposed to any harm or are only exposed to minimal harm within the given methodological
framework.
(5) The ethical risk analysis shall assess the risks/potential damages as well as the results/benefits arising from
the research, whether there is a likelihood of causing damage/harm at the level of the individual/group/society
during the research, and what the potential benefit of the research can be.
(6) Measures to be taken to minimize risks (e.g. omitting unnecessary risk factors, replacing them by factors
involving less risk, requirement of providing follow-up information) shall be taken.
(7) The necessity of applying for a research ethics permission can be established as part of the research plan by
the researcher, the leader of the research project by filling in the Review Questionnaire and can be initiated
by sending it to the Committee via e -mail. The Review Questionnaire and the ethical risk analysis shall be
included in the research documentation.
(8) Subject to the category established on the basis of the Review Questionna ire, the procedure shall be as
follows:
a) permission is not required for the research if none of the questions in Part 2 of the Review Questionnaire
has been answered in the affirmative;
b) in the case of low concern, that is minimal ethical risk, it is sufficient to consider the criteria set out for the
given ethical aspect, to respect the relevant protocol if some of the questions in Part 2 have been answered
in the affirmative.
ba) The Review Questionnaire shall be submitted, however , if the ethical issues arising during the
research are appropriately addressed, there are no further ethical issues/risks involved, and therefore the
permission can be issued without requesting additional information.
bb) If the ethical issues are not appropriately addressed in the Review Questionnaire, the Committee shall
issue a call as to how the information provided in the Review Questionnaire should be modified to
obtain the permission.
2/2020. (V. 26.) számú rektori rendelkezés
- 5 -
c) Higher concern under (7), that is when the risks involved exceed the minimu m, besides fillin g in the
Review Questionnaire it is necessary to apply for a research ethics permission with respect to the entire
research plan. The Committee shall evaluate the research plan as a whole , it shall assess whether the
intended methods are suitable from a research ethics viewpoint to achieve the research objectives.
Issuing the permission shall be subject to modifying the research plan and to making the relevant
changes in the information provided in the Review Questionnaire on the basis of the Committee’s
evaluation.
(9) Risks exceeding the minimum level (higher concern) might occur in the following cases:
a) vulnerable populations, groups (that need other’s care and protection, have a handicap or do not
possess the knowledge that would enable them to wholly understand the implications of the research
concerning them, that is for which providing an adequate background for an informed consent requires
particular attention. The participating person may be considered vulnerable if he/she is a minor, suffers
from a mental or physical disability, has a cognitive impairment , is an expectant mother, is aged, is a
student, is a member of the armed forces, suffers discrimination, is serving his/her sentence/has been
convicted, is a refugee, is an illegal immigrant, is a sex worker /offers sex services for money, belongs to
the political opposition/minority ; is traumatised and may be exposed to repeated traumatization (e.g.
comes from an area involved in armed conflict; is the victim of a crime or aggression), is dependent on the
researcher, the members of the research group (e.g. students attending the researcher’s course/class,
subordinates of the person conducting the research at the institution), etc.
b) sensitive research topics (e.g. concerning sexual/illegal/political behaviour; aggression/abuse/exploitation,
mental health, personal/family life; gender issues/ ethnical status; persons in prominent positions),
c) in the event of risk of ps ychological stress, access by the rese archer shall be subject to the
permission of the supervising person or organization (e.g. communities, social and educational institutions,
research within an organization);
d) the methodology includes deception/ interventional procedures, hidden research, data collection;
e) recording of sensitive personal data (the issue of individual identifiab ility may arise during the data
collection: research projects using data collected on the internet, on social media and using, creating
images that are suitable for the purposes of identification);
f) in the case of dangerous research locations where research exposes the researcher to risk;
g) the use of the research findings may provide an opportunity for abuse.
(10) The researcher, leader of the research project, member of the research group shall be bound to act in
accordance with the Committee’s evaluation and request, to withdraw from the given research activity or
in cases subject to a permission, to perform the research in the way specified in the permission.
(11) Any breach of the present Provisions or of the application for permission procedure during the research
(e.g. failure to carry out the self -review, failure to include the Review Q uestionnaire in the research
documentation), or any action, conduct that is not in line with the permission shall be considered as an
ethical abuse, provided that more serious breaches have not occurred.
7.§ Miscellaneous
(1) The present provisions shall enter into force on the day of their publication and shall apply to any research
project launched after their effective date.
Annex 1: Review Questionnaire
2/2020. (V. 26.) számú rektori rendelkezés
- 6 -
Drafted by: Erika Cser
Andrea Skaliczky, Head of Economic
and Labour Law
26 March 2020
6 May 2020
Checked by: Gyula Vastag Vice-Rector for Research 6 May 2020
Approved by:
András Lánczi, Rector
16 May 2020
Issued by:
Marica Sárközi-Kerezsi, Head of
Administrative and Regulatory Affairs
26 May 2020
seal