Table 2 Criteria related to relevance

Contribution to (scholarly) ethics (epistemic/scientific relevance):

• Will the study possibly produce knowledge that could not be generated by relying on traditional disciplinary methodologies? (e.g. overcoming too separated empirical research and separate philosophical discussion) [15, 22]

• Does the study aim to increase our knowledge, and if so, with regard to what? (e.g. does the study contribute to a balance between theoretically generated norms and empirically found norms? E.g. Does it revise/improve the impact of ethical guidelines?) [56–58, 78]

• Does the study aim to give input on an ongoing controversy, or does it provide a new perspective on it? (e.g. clarifying if relatives are able to give substitute judgment for incapacitated patients or not, or e.g. if post-trial access should be compelling on the basis of new evidence of consequences when post-trial access is not given etc.) [16], partly [76]

• Does the study aim to offer substantial arguments for or criticism of established ethical positions? (e.g. is a contribution to theory modification or to a refinement of the application of a theory expected? Are descriptive presuppositions of an ethical position, such as anthropological, sociological or psychological assumptions, criticised?) [1, 16, 66]

• Does the study aim to contribute to the development or refinement of scientific methods, especially methods of EE research, and if so, how? (e.g. pilot testing of a jointly developed research instrument, identifying the need of developing new or refined forms of interactions between researchers) [6, 58]

• Does the study aim to offer potential for innovation, and if so, what kind of innovation? (e.g. is it a contribution to theory-building expected? Will the study generate new instruments for ethical decision-making?) [6, 77]

• Does the study aim to contribute to another scientific and/or ethical discourse? (e.g. does it contribute to social sciences discourses?) [partly [1]

• Does the study clearly states to whom it is addressed, and who will benefit from its results? (e.g. are the addresses and/or beneficiaries physicians, nurses, social scientists, ethicists or especially empirical ethicists? Are policy-makers or persons in a management position addressed? [58]

Contribution to ethical practice (societal/practical relevance):

• Does the study aim to improve ethical decision-making? (e.g. will it produce evidence that was absent, or will it give guidance regarding the specification of accepted norms or regarding the interpretation of institutional or legal rules?) [6, 14, 75], partly [17]

• Does the study aim to raise awareness (among actors, institutions or society) of particular ethical problems? (e.g. does the study identify new ethical problems, or does it highlight specific aspects of a known ethical problem that was not yet addressed sufficiently in practice?) [20, 78]

• Does the study aim to lead to a shift in structures and/or decision-making processes (in relevant institutions)? (e.g. establishing new guidelines or building new forms of committees for ethical review) [77], partly [23]

• Does the study aim to establish minimum ethical standards (in relevant institutions or professions)? (e.g. creating new informed consent procedures for specific patient groups?)

• Does the study aim to contribute to or stimulate public debate? (e.g. about physician-assisted suicide, rationing in health care, public health funds etc.)

• Does the study aim to contribute to or stimulate a process of legislation? (e.g. proposing alteration of legal norms)

• Does the study aim to articulate the need for reforms (in a certain institution or system of society)? (e.g. by evaluating current practices.) [6]

• Does the study aim to articulate new ethically pertinent ecological or economic problems? (e.g. costs related to a broad implementation of the use of social robots in elderly care) [16]