<p>This paper presents the results from a qualitative study with Swedish researchers in the social sciences and the humanities. The aim of the study was to explore researchers’ perceptions of ethical review (i.e. the pros and cons of the system) and to what extent the system of ethical review could possibly be reformed to better accommodate research in the social sciences and the humanities. To this end, 7 semi-structured group interviews were conducted during the spring of 2024. In total, 18 researchers from different fields of social sciences and the humanities participated, including business, language studies, history, educational science, health and society, political science, psychology, human rights, youth studies, legal studies, religious studies, gender studies, sociology, and peace and conflict studies. The results of the study show that the perceptions of the participants vary significantly when it comes to the issue of whether ethical review should be externally regulated. While some participants clearly favoured a system of self-governance, others say that ethical review should indeed be regulated externally for reasons of fairness and impartiality. Many of the participants say that the process of applying for ethical review suffers from lack of support from the Ethical Review Authority and that the bureaucracy of ethical review focuses too much on technicalities that researchers not always find relevant. They also report that the system is associated with fear of doing wrong and that some researchers sometimes deliberately choose research topics or methods that do not require ethical approval.</p>