Para 11, page 10 has a reference to language, culture, interpretation and culture linked to participants’ understanding – under the banner of consent.

Para 17, page 12 about consent in ethnographic and observational studies (group and individual consent) might be developed further.

Para 51, p. 25 on protecting data internationally.

Para 73, p.32 on making research results available in local as well as more internationally accessible languages.

Para 76, p. 33 addressing sensitivity in publishing in specific contexts. 

The principle which relates to respect (p.4and p.5) might be developed to clarify on whose terms this might happen. 

Para 78-81, p.34 on authorship might benefit from a clear emphasis on working interculturally or internationally – there might also be a power dynamic to consider. 

Para 34 -39, pp.19-21 about potential harm arising from the research may need to be strengthened to emphasise the responsibility of the researcher and, possibly, the scope for error arising from unexpected ignorance or insensitivity.

Para 44, p.22 there appears to be an acceptance that a sponsor should have the right to un-anonymised, fully identifiable data.  The scope for mis-use is considerable and should be reviewed.  Requesting consent of people who are unlikely to be as aware of the consequences of this kind of consent for third-party , secondary data analysis as the researcher should be re-thought.

Para 52, p.26 consider removing the coy statement which suggests that there may be endemic low level corruption out there, “in some parts of the world.”  The UK is also in this category.