DEP Tool: Ethics Reviewer
Introduction
This manual explains how to review ethics approval request in the DEP-Tool.
This manual is written mainly from the perspective of a Psychology ethics reviewer at FSW, so some steps may look different for researchers from other Faculties. See also the Workflows section below.
This manual is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, for accessibility quick-start guides may be available.
Access & Account
Researchers and students from Leiden University can log in to the DEP-Tool using their ULCN credentials. An account is automatically created and no extra steps need to be taken. If you experience any issues with your account, you can contact:
- FSW: informationmanager@FSW.leidenuniv.nl
- Humanities: researchsupport@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Reviewer Permission
To be able to review ethics applications, your account needs to have the proper role and permissions in the DEP Tool.
These roles can be assigned by a faculty-admin user, usually this is a member of the relevant ethics committees.
Workflows
Psychology
Quick-Start
To be added
Review Allocation
After an application has been submitted by or on behalf of the principal investigator, it will be allocated to one of the ethics reviewers based on multiple factors, including: caseload, unit, status.
The review appears in MyReviews > New. An email is sent to both the reviewer and the applicant(s). An email notification is sent to the reviewer as a reminder for reviewing on time. A review period can be set per type of application.
Regardless of which reviewer the application is assigned to, all reviewers have so-called Invitation permissions to invite other reviewers and for being invited to read along and comment.
Caseload
A reviewer has a caseload with a max amount of reviews, which can be set by an ethics member with the Faculty-Admin role.
During holidays the faculty admin can temporarily set caseload 0 to prevent new allocations (note, existing allocations will remain).
Caseload variables include: current, max and turnover rate
Unit
For Psychology applications are (whenever possible) assigned to a reviewer that is from the same Institute but a different Unit than the PI. For example, an application from a Cognitive Psychology PI may not be allocated to a reviewer from the Cognitive unit, but can be allocated to a reviewer from Clinical Psychology instead.
Status
Application status e.g.: new, linked application, revision, will also help determine to which reviewer an application is sent.
MyReviews
The tabs in the MyReviews section correspond to the various stages of review an application can be in. A counter indicates how many applications are currently in that stage.
In brief the various sections are:
- New: reviews that have not yet been started.
- Draft: a draft of the review(s) that are in progress (have saved information) and are not finalized.
- Pending: the review has been finalized and revisions have been requested from the researchers.
- Accepted: the review has been finalized and the application has been accepted.
- Rejected: the review has been finalized and the application has not been accepted.
Reviews Overview
In each section an overview of the reviews is displayed. Table options include:
- Show more or fewer rows
- Show more or fewer columns by clicking next to the Search button
- Sort by column heading. Each column header can be clicked.
- Search full-text by filling in at least 2 letters.
- Export the columns (Excel/JSON/CSV format).
Overview Columns
Below a brief overview of the different columns (in alphabetical order). Depending on the status of the review, the amount of information and their order (the default visible columns) will be different
Table below is clickable to enlarge, filter or sort.
Click here to see the master table.
Filters applied by default (none), to see the entire table, click on it and press reset.
| Column | Description | Admin |
|---|---|---|
| Approval Letter | Can be used to download the approval letter again. | Note: This is generated from the approval letter text, it looks like this is done once and the pdf is then stored for later use. However if the pdf was not generated (correctly) at the moment of approval, clicking here will generate the letter with the current version of the approval letter text |
| Approval Date | Date on which approval was granted by the reviewer. | |
| Attachment | Uploaded documents belonging to amendments or linked application, e.g. of approved applications that pre-date the use of the DEP-Tool. | |
| CEP reference number | The unique reference code for the current application that can be used in external communication and reporting. | |
| CEP title | -currently deprecated- | |
| Changes | - to be added - | todo: Not clear what exactly is in this field |
| Comments (ethics) | The latest comments (if any) as specified by the reviewer in the 'global' comments field of the review. | |
| Comments (privacy) | - to be added - | todo: Need to figure out |
| Created on | The date on which the current version of the of the application was created by the researcher. | |
| Co-investigators | Names of all the (Leiden University) co-investigators provided in the application. | |
| Form type | E.g. "Bachelor Project (New)", "fMRI linked application (Amendment)" etc. | |
| Form type | Internal name of the form as designated by form creator. | |
| Form name | Unique internal identifier number of the application (incremental, so higher is newer). | |
| Id | Click here to invite another reviewer. | |
| Invite | The source application for linked applications, amendments etcetera. | |
| Invite | In case of revisions refers to the first version of the application. I does not refer to linked application or amended application. | |
| Original | In case of revisions refers to the first version of the application. I does not refer to linked application or amended application. | |
| Start review | Click here to start or continue a review. | |
| Principal Investigator | Name of the principal investigator as provided in the application. | |
| Red flags | -currently deprecated- Used to indicate if any fields were answered such that potential privacy related issues are present that may require consulting with Privacy Officer. | |
| Title | Title of the application as provided by the researcher. | |
| Submitted On | The date on which the current version of the application was submitted for review by the researcher. | |
| Urgency | Weeks since submission, color indicates urgency (green = within deadline, yellow = 1 week or less to deadline, red = past deadline). | |
| Version | refers to the current iteration of the application as a result of revisions. |
Standard Review
Start or Continue Review
To start a new review go to the MyReview > New section.
Note the Form type to see what kind of application it is, e.g.: new, revision, amendment. Then click on the pencil icon in the Start Review column.
To continue an existing saved review, go to MyReviews > Drafts section instead.
Optionally, Invite other reviewers by clicking on the eye symbol (e.g., the privacy officer) and searching by (last) name.
Navigating and Sections
An application will consist of answers to multiple questions, which are divided in sections.
There will always be a General Information section. Other sections may include: Fast-Track, Ethics, Privacy, Attachments, etcetera
You can navigate the review by jumping to a specific question through the left menu, by using the horizontal section buttons, and by scrolling through the questions per section.
General Information
Start by checking the General Information section, in particular pay attention to any involved external co-investigators, whether the start and end dates seem sensible, and most of all, any general comments left by the researchers in the Comments field.
In case the current application is linked to a prior study that pre-dates the DEP-Tool, the "attachment for linked application" should contain a PDF or Word file of that original study.
Writing Comments and Notes
After inspecting the General Information continue with the other questions in the form, and read the answers provided by the researcher(s).
Comments per Question:
Generally each question in the application the following elements: 1) Question text 2) Answer provided by the researcher in a blue box 3) Review instruction for the question in the green box 4) the question comment box where the Reviewer can leave comments for the researcher.
Evaluate the provided answers, pay attention to the review instructions and leave any relevant comments or questions for the researchers in the box.
General Comments:
In the top right corner there is a button for a General Comments field. Using the general comments field s not mandatory; it depends on working agreements in the ethics committee. However, only the text from this field is mentioned in the email notification and can be read in the “Comments of the reviewer” text box. It is recommended to provide a summary of the review here for the application and include any comments that do not belong to a specific question in the application.
Personal Notes:
Write personal notes in the top right corner (e.g., a personal checklist). Notes are not visible for other reviewers and applicants. Click outside the box to close the box or click the X-button.
Invited Reviewer Comments:
If any other reviewers have been invited to the review they may have left comments. Note that these are only visible to the primary Reviewer. If any comments or questions should be conveyed to the researcher(s) the main Reviewer should incorporate them into their own per-question or general comments.
Approve, Reject or Revision
After going through the application, and you are satisfied with your comments, you will finalize the review by approving it, rejecting it or requesting revisions from the researcher.
Approve 
Click on approve if you are satisfied with the application. By default upon approval, all comments are discarded and the approved version of the application is saved without any comments. You can also choose not to discard the current comments, e.g. if the application can be approved but you still want to convey some minor issues.
Note that if there are earlier versions of the application, e.g. before revisions by the researchers, the comments in those version will remain saved and visible
For the Reviewer the application will now appear in MyReviews > Accepted, and for the researcher(s) in MyStudies > Approved. From there, both Reviewer and researcher(s) can open the accepted version or the approval letter (as read only pdf).
Request Revisions 
Click “Request revisions” if a revision is required. The researcher(s) will be notified by email, which will including the comments in the General Comment box. When viewing the application they will be able to see the comments per question as well.
For the Reviewer the application will now appear in the MyReview > Pending section, until the researchers submit their revised version.
Reject 
Click “Reject” for rejecting the application. Choose a reason (e.g., administrative error or subject to WMO). Generally there are few reasons to outright reject an application, if possible request revisions instead.
For the Reviewer the application will now appear in MyReviews > Rejected, and for the researcher(s) in MyStudies > Rejected. From there, both Reviewer and researcher(s) can open the accepted version or the approval letter (as read only pdf).
Revisions Review
Once researcher(s) have revised their application and submitted it again, it will show up in MyReviews > New for the original Main Reviewer and an email notification will be sent. If there was an Invited Reviewer for the original application, they will automatically get access to the submitted revision as well.
For the most part, reviewing now happens similarly to a Standard Review process, with some minor additions:
Overview
In the overview screen the Urgency is reset to 0 weeks.
The Version of the application is incremented by one (per revision).
Comments
Check the "Comments" field in the General Information section to see the researcher(s) comments regarding the revision. 
To show only question items that have been changed by the researcher(s) click on the "Show only revised questions".
The previous General Comments of the Main Reviewer are included in the General Comments field.
If their were any question-specific comments from the Main Reviewer, they can be accessed with the button "View previous comments". Note that this only has the comments of the last revision request.
Comments from Invited Reviewers are not available in this version anymore
Invited Review
As Main Reviewer
Invite Reviewer
The Main Reviewer can invite another reviewer (ethics reviewer, privacy officer, data steward) to read along and provide feedback. Access is granted for 30 days.
To invite a reviewer:
- Click on the on the eye-icon in the Invite column.
- Enter the name of the reviewer
- Fill in the Reason text box.
An email notification is sent to the Invited Reviewer(s). If a revision is submitted, an email notification is sent to the invited reviewer too and the revision will also be visible for the Invited Reviewer.
Sharing Comments
Comment visibility works as follows:
- The Main Reviewer can see the question-specific and general comments of all Invited Reviewers.
- The Invited Reviewers can only see the question-specific comments of the Main Reviewer, and (if they have cliked the Save button) the General Comments of the Main Reviewer.
- Researcher(s) / Applicants can only see the comments of the Main Reviewer. So it is up to the Main Reviewer to include any feedback from the Invited Reviewers into their own comments if desired.
After the invited reviewer has saved their comments for the first time, an email notification is sent to the main reviewer. No other notifications are sent until the the invited Reviewer clicks the "Notify" button to let the main Reviewer know that they are done.
Examples of Invited Reviewer comments:
As Invited Reviewer
Overview
Once you have been invited to review an application you will receive a notification by email and the application will appear in the MyInvites > New section. In the overview, in addition to the standard application details, you will also see: who invited you (Invited by), when you were invited (Invited on) and why you have been invited (Reason) by the main Reviewer. Click on the eye symbol on start reviewing.
Viewing Comments
In the General Information section there will be item called "Main reviewer comments" will display the General Comments left by the main Reviewer. For these to be visible, the main Reviewer must have clicked the Save button.
Per question, any comments the main reviewer has left (including their timestamp) are visible, they can be clicked to fold in or out.
Leaving Comments
Similarly to a normal review, an invited reviewer can leave comments the General Comment field on the top right and for each specific question item.
Importantly, comments from invited reviewers are never shown to the researchers. The main reviewer decides if (and how) to include/copy text from the invited reviewer in the comments for the researcher(s).
The first time you click on the "Save" button to preserve your comments, the main Reviewer will be notified by email, so that they know you have started. This notification is only sent the first time
Notifying
Once you are finished with your review you can inform the main Reviewer by click on the "Notify Reviewer" button. This will send an email to the main Reviewer to let them know you are finished.
As Admin
For administrators it may be helpful to know that all invited action and manual changes of reviewers are logged. Refer to the admin manual for more details.
Red flags
The red flag functionality is currently not used.