Online
The application says one thing about your method. The consent form makes promises to participants. The recruitment script sets expectations. The instrument sits in an appendix. The data management plan describes what happens afterwards. A reviewer holds all five at once, and their job is largely to find where they fail to line up.
Common mismatches: consent promising anonymity while the method collects identifiers, a script implying that participation is expected, an appendix containing a different version of the survey than the one described, a data plan naming a laptop without naming encryption. None of those are ethical failures. All of them cost a cycle.
Boards run several routes and they move at very different speeds. A determination can come back inside a fortnight; a full-board review waits for a meeting that may be a month away, and then possibly another one after revisions.
Which route applies is a function of the study rather than of how much work you want it to be — who the participants are, how sensitive what you are collecting is, whether anyone could be re-identified from it, and whether the group involved is one the regulations single out for protection. Aiming below what the study warrants is a false economy with a measurable cost: the submission comes back, and then you do the heavier review anyway, several weeks later than if you had started there.
Somebody with no background in your field has to read it and decide. Consent documents fail readability expectations constantly because they are written in the register of the proposal that surrounds them.
State what will happen to them, how long it will take, what could go wrong, what becomes of their information, and that stopping at any point costs them nothing. Short sentences, no term they would have to look up. Boards scrutinise this document more closely than anything else in the packet, because it is the only part a participant will ever see.
Rewriting the protocol and resubmitting is the slowest possible response, because the reviewer must now hunt through a changed document to establish whether their points were met — and reviewers who hunt tend to find something new.
Reply as a table instead: each comment reproduced in their order, your response underneath, and the page and line where the change lives. It converts the second read from an investigation into a confirmation, which is where most of the saved time in this service comes from.
What nobody can offer is the outcome. The board is independent, applies its own judgment, and any service promising approval is describing something outside its control.
Your institution's current application form, consent template and guidance notes, plus whatever exists of the study.
All the documents drafted together and cross-checked against each other, at the review level your study actually warrants.
Every comment addressed in the board's own order with the location of each change, so the re-read is quick.
Ask your own office what it is currently running at, then plan around that number as a phase of the project rather than a gap between phases. A determination can come back inside a fortnight where the office is well staffed. Anything needing the full committee waits on when that committee next sits. And a single protocol sent back for revision routinely pushes the start of data collection out by two months.
Exempt is a category the board assigns, not a conclusion you are entitled to reach yourself, and programs generally want the determination letter on file before anything is gathered. The submission itself is short and often turns round quickly. Deciding on your own and collecting first is the expensive route: data obtained without an approval in place may be unusable, and there is no retrospective fix for that.
The first question for DNP and applied doctoral students, not a technicality, because the two take different routes and institutions draw the line differently. It turns on intent and on whether findings are meant to generalise. Ask your board directly and in writing, early — the answer sometimes changes the design.
That is the default here, using whichever version your institution is currently issuing rather than a generic shell. Forms get revised more often than students expect, and submitting on last year's version is an avoidable return that costs a cycle for no reason at all.
No, and treat anyone who does as disqualified by the offer. A board is an independent committee weighing your particular study, and nobody outside it controls the outcome. What is controllable is everything before the decision: a complete packet, internally consistent, submitted at the level the study actually warrants, in the format that board publishes — and, when a letter comes back, a reply written so it can be approved rather than discussed again.
Tell us the program, the term ahead and where the grade is leaking. A specialist in your field replies with a plan and a quote within two hours. The reading costs nothing, and sometimes the honest answer is that we are the wrong fit.
Online