The report is based on two questions: what the research says about the democratic scrutiny of central banks, and what research exists on how this scrutiny affects the goal achievement and efficiency of central banks. The report shows, among other things, that the hearings of the central bank leadership in the responsible parliamentary committee are emphasized by several researchers as central to democratic accountability. The resources of the committees for scrutiny, expert support, and subject competence are highlighted in several studies as crucial for the quality of the scrutiny and the ability to hold the central bank leadership accountable. Another prerequisite for scrutiny is that the central bank is transparent and openly accounts for the reasons behind its decisions. Some research also exists on the forms of parliamentary scrutiny of the central bank. This includes what is known as deliberative accountability, which focuses on dialogue and reasoned argument between the scrutinizing committee and the central bank. Several research studies discuss whether the unconventional monetary policies applied since the global financial crisis to combat crises are fully within the mandate of central banks, which could ultimately affect the democratic legitimacy of the banks. In this context, some studies emphasize the need for qualified democratic scrutiny of central banks.