调查问卷向组织中的知识工作人员分发，以调查以下假设：
- H1。道德与组织绩效之间存在积极和重要的关系。
— H2. There is a positive and significant relationship between ethics and intellectual capital.
- H3。智力资本与组织绩效之间存在积极和重要的关系。
部分原因是响应率很高（148/160），对作者进行了关于主题同意程序的程序。
我们最近（和直接）查询是：“我们需要更多地了解，这是为了保护被调查的个人的利益所做的事情。他们是否有任何诱因参加（例如，奖励或不这样做的惩罚）？您是否收集了这些人的任何同意书？他们说了什么（请向其他文件提供翻译）？对他们所做的任何保证，还是有可能提供答案经理，政府或宗教当局不喜欢这个人会造成伤害？如果有伤害的可能性是调查的160人警告他们？如何？他们告诉他们将用于哪些数据？他们是什么告诉？当你修改了这篇论文，给出了一些指示并提供了（翻译）同意书，请访问向作者的说明来完成您的提交“。
响应于这些查询，收到了以下回复。“我们已经在调查问卷的第一部分中设置了一个求职信，其中包括以下项目：调查问卷没有任何名称和个人信息。如前所述，在组织内的学习计划期间，强烈关注和对道德问题的承诺很重要达到组织目标。考虑到道德和IC的重要性，这项研究的最终目标是探讨它们之间的关系，最后对组织绩效的影响。这项研究的结果将通过考虑隐私问题来发布。它is important to note that the organization’s management has a strong commitment to the above noted subjects. Besides a non-valuable reward, the most important incentive for employees’ participation is that they are in this believed that their organization should be pioneer in comparison with their competitors. Due to being knowledge-based organization, employees have actively participated in such studies, and also they have perceived their positive outcome well, accordingly involving in such studies was accepted as a common subject in that organization".
因此，似乎没有收集同意形式，并且对参与者可能造成伤害的任何东西都没有。没有保证他们能够自由回答。
鉴于研究的更广泛背景，人类研究道德是否构成了本文出版的障碍？
论坛不nec确认同意表格essary if the questionnaires are anonymous. Ideally, the authors should produce an “ethical reviewer waiver” so that the editor knows that an expert has looked over the protocol and deemed that ethics approval is not required. If the study was conducted at a university, then there should be a university ethics committee. If the editor decides to publish the paper, he could write a note saying that this paper does not have any ethical oversight. But if the editor still has some concerns, he could consider contacting the authors again for more information, and writing out in a very clear way the questions that he requires answers to.
编辑遵循了COPE论坛的建议。但是，当对同行评审时，审稿人的决定是“拒绝”，所以本文被拒绝了。