Oversight research may involve employees, complainants, witnesses and whistleblowers whose participation creates risks beyond ordinary confidentiality. Research design and reporting must address those risks explicitly.

Review and ethical basis

Authors must explain relevant ethical review or approval, including the responsible body and reference where applicable. If formal review was not required or an exemption applied, identify the basis and describe the safeguards used. A statement of “not applicable” requires an explanation suited to the research.

Consider recruitment, power relationships, consent, data handling and foreseeable consequences of disclosure. Research conducted within an employer or public authority requires attention to whether participation was genuinely voluntary and whether non-participation could carry perceived consequences.

Consent and vulnerable relationships

Describe how participants were informed about the research, intended use of information and limits of confidentiality. Distinguish agreement to participate from permission to publish an identifiable quotation, image or account. Avoid assuming that permission from an institution replaces an individual’s consent.

Interviews with whistleblowers, complainants or persons involved in contested proceedings may expose employment, reputational or other risks. Use proportionate protection, minimize identifiers and consider whether contextual details can reveal a person even when names are removed.

Public records and secondary evidence

Public availability does not eliminate ethical responsibilities. Assess whether combining records, reproducing allegations or quoting an identifiable account creates avoidable harm. Explain source provenance and distinguish allegations, findings and final determinations.

For secondary datasets or administrative records, identify the authorization or access basis and relevant restrictions. Do not upload protected raw records to demonstrate compliance. The Confidentiality & Sensitive Information policy provides further safeguards.

Proportionate reporting

Publish identifying details only where necessary to the scholarly argument and supported by an appropriate basis. Editors may request clarification, further de-identification or additional documentation, and may decline material where risks or permissions cannot be resolved. Ethical approval does not remove the authors’ responsibility for decisions made during analysis and publication.

Updated 5 October 2026 · Questions: JPOII Editorial Office