Researcher Awareness and Submission Practices to Ethics Committees in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Researcher Awareness and Submission Practices to Ethics Committees in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Researcher Awareness and Submission Practices to Ethics Committees in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study Roaa Bogdadi, Dr. Nahid Qushmaq, Eng. Rahaf Al Hasheem, Dr. Marivel Guzman, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Medical Ethics → Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are central to safeguarding ethical obligations in research, yet awareness and submission practices among researchers in Saudi Arabia remain inconsistent. This study explored researchers’ awareness, submission methodologies, perceived barriers, and possible improvements to the IRB process. An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to 915 researchers across Saudi academic and research institutions, with 870 valid responses analyzed. The questionnaire covered demographics, awareness of ethical principles, submission practices, barriers, and recommendations. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests, with Cramer’s V used to indicate effect sizes. Results showed that prior submission experience was significantly associated with higher awareness of research ethics (87.3% vs. 49.4%, χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.414). Institutional support also had a modest but significant effect on perceptions of submission ease (χ²(16) = 195.75, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.237). Formal ethics training demonstrated a moderate effect on confidence in applying protocols (78.2% vs. 48.5%, χ²(1) = 80.32, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.304). Barriers commonly reported included unclear procedures, bureaucratic delays, and limited supervisory guidance, while qualitative analysis highlighted recurring concerns regarding procedural complexity. Despite a well-established regulatory framework, practical gaps in awareness and submission practices persist. Researcher-driven recommendations such as structured training, simplified digital platforms, and stronger supervisory involvement could enhance compliance and reinforce integrity as a core scientific value in research practice. Research ethics Institutional Review Board awareness submission practices Saudi Arabia Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION The processes of ethical approval are fundamental in safeguarding human participants and securing the reputation of science. The main mechanism for enforcing ethical standards in the research context is the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Research Ethics Committees (RECs). These mechanisms safeguard the conduct of research in an ethical manner, demonstrating integrity, respect, and accountability. Nonetheless, despite the importance of these processes, issues with awareness, compliance, and procedures persist across varying contexts of research. Lack of understanding about ethical processes has been shown to delay obtaining project approval, impair protections for human participants, and jeopardize the reputation of the institution (Resnik, 2020 ). Recent studies demonstrate that even in well-established research systems, investigators experience annoyance with bureaucratic delays, lack of clarity in submission processes, and inconsistent reviews (McCausland et al., 2024 ). These continuing challenges highlight that ethical oversight is not only a matter of policy but also of practice and researcher preparedness, making it a global concern. Evidence from across the globe demonstrates the universality of these concerns. In the example of South Africa, the new ethics review process revealed ongoing issues with student submissions reflecting lack of preparedness and that subsequently resulted in multiple submissions (Davies, 2020 ). In the United Kingdom, researchers have frequently indicated that they viewed IRBs as obstructive rather than facilitating as a result of enforced driving rules and long review times (Brown, 2020 ; Head, 2018 ). Research in China shows sustained gaps in understanding ethics, especially concerning informed consent and data privacy, and early-career researchers reported limited training in official protocols (Zhang et al., 2021 ). Researchers in the United States similarly expressed concerns about inefficiencies in multicenter reviews and a lack of harmonization between committees (Stommel & Rijk, 2021 ). Likewise, research emerging from the Middle East regarding medical trainees and postgraduate students lessened awareness of fundamental principles of research ethics was associated with inconsistency towards compliance (AlKabba et al., 2012). Together, these studies illustrate that challenges with ethics review are not found in one region, but range across multiple countries and regions into high- and middle-income settings. With regard to research ethics review, there have been marked improvements in Saudi Arabia in recent years. The National Committee of Bioethics (NCBE) has developed extensive regulations to provide standards for ethical review across institutions, and the majority of universities have their own internal review boards (IRBs). Nevertheless, practical challenges remain. Research indicates that even when regulations exist, many researchers, especially students and junior researchers, perceive challenges with respect to ethical duties in their research (Alahmad et al., 2022 ). Supervisors have different abilities to assist students with developing their proposals, with some students not being able to prepare a proposal without significant help. Coordinators/administrators, who assist students with this work, often have a large bureaucratic burden to do their work, which slows down the process and may decrease the researchers' motivation. These are concerns that emphasize the gap between how formal regulatory structures exist and the experiences of those who are navigating them. Although there is international and regional research indicating a lack of awareness and practices related to research ethics, there is little evidence of Saudi researchers’ experiences and their understanding of ethical protocols, submission practices, and barriers. Additionally, only a small number of studies offer perspectives about researchers along career trajectories and across disciplines, leaving to question how the experiences of students and faculty researchers, and research staff may differ. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to systematically examine researchers’ awareness, submission practices, and barriers at Saudi institutions, and make recommendations for improvement in ethics education and submission processes. Main Objectives To assess researchers’ awareness, attitudes, and submission practices regarding ethical protocols and IRB requirements in Saudi Arabia. Specific Objectives Assess researchers’ level of awareness of ethical protocols and submission requirements. Examine submission practices to ethics committees across different disciplines and career stages. Identify the barriers researchers encounter when engaging with ethics committees. Provide recommendations for improving ethics training and submission practices. Significance of the Study This study is important as it helps bridge the gap between policy and practice. The work produced from this study will help universities and research organizations strengthen training, streamline submission, and enhance ethical compliance. As a research organization, this is particularly important from a research coordinator's perspective. Even though students have been formally assigned to a supervisor, inevitably they are often still not ready to write proposals independently, which signifies weak areas of training and mentorship for students. Some researchers also approach ethics compliance as a transaction expecting some type of recognition or value from the administration, rather than seeing it as a scientific responsibility; two ideas that are inconsistent with each other. These instances belittle the very essence of ethical review: to protect participants and the integrity of research. By considering ethics as a scientific value and achievement in and of itself, this study provides evidence of that can prompt a culture of integrity, respect and responsibility of which institutions in Saudi Arabia may be better able to promote in their research. LITERATURE REVIEW The ethical approval process is vital in protecting human participants and ensuring the advancement of trustworthy scientific research. IRBs and RECs are the main strategies by which research will honor ethical guidelines. Despite a global emphasis on ethics, awareness of and practices related to IRBs are inconsistent across settings, resulting in delays, non-compliance and in some cases breaches of ethics. In the literature, several repetitive challenges are clearly pertinent to this study, falling into four key areas: (1) difficulties with proposal writing, (2) inadequacies in supervision and training, (3) coordinator and administrative load within IRB processes, and (4) a contrast between intrinsic worth of the science, and extrinsic worth of the research. Students’ Struggles with Research Proposals Evidence suggests that students encounter a number of difficulties in developing research proposals, especially related to the research problem, the approach methodology, and ethical alignment. For example, case studies from Indonesia and Malaysia identified that undergraduate and graduate students had little to no training in proposal writing, and their proposals altogether missed large sections, writing ideas, and had little to no clear meaning (Alostath, 2021; UIN Ar-Raniry Repository, 2020). Very similar conclusions were drawn in South Africa, where institutional reviews of student researchers showed students were resubmitting proposals a number of times, mainly due to errors (Davies, 2020 ). These issues indicate that students have little to no experience with research ethics during their training programs and are dependent on supervisors to help navigate understanding. Weakness in Supervision and Training Effective supervision is necessary for assuring ethical and high-quality research. However, shortcomings in supervisory practices are prevalent. Cheung, Friedman, Ng, & Cullum ( 2018 ) reported that many supervisors do not receive purposeful training in mentoring trainees on ethical or scholarly projects to adapt to funding agency regulations. A pilot study of supervisor training demonstrated that if supervisors were not trained systematically, they could unintentionally transmit poor practice that results in insufficiency to comply with ethical standards (Halim, 2021). Notably, studies in higher education noted that gaps in supervisor training are influential in inconsistent quality of student proposals, and in breaching a mutual agreement to be ethical participants (Head, 2018 ). Findings by Cheung, et al. and Halim, also correspond to the barriers in the present study where postgraduate students frequently reported not having enough support from their supervisors was a primary barrier in figuring out the submission process to the funding agency. Coordinator and Administrator Burdens in IRB Systems Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are an important component of maintaining ethical practices, while the coordinators and administrators engaged with these processes are often expected to work out convoluted, often bureaucratic, processes. For example, in South Africa, research has reported that ethics committees were routinely criticized for slow timelines for review, vague or ambiguous requirements, and burdensome administrative requirements (Davies, 2020 ). Similarly in the U.K., educational researchers noted that ethics committees were sometimes viewed as "foes" rather than allies due to overly constituted instances of guidance and variability in the guidance (Brown, 2020 ; Head, 2018 ). The realities associated with multi-institutional studies are even more complex. Klitzman ( 2019 ) described the interpretation of local knowledge as an amalgam to the inconsistencies in interpretation that delineated a structural concept for review, while Stommel and Rijk ( 2021 ) provided of an example of online researchers not only having to address continuing changes but also having to reconcile changes with currently approved forms. Viewed from the coordinator's perspective, these burdens are not just abstract but lived experiences as administrators and coordinators are often expected to navigate the relationship between the expectations of policy and struggles encountered by the researcher. Incentives versus Intrinsic Scientific Value Another recurrent point in the literature is the influence of incentives on the behavior of researchers. Studies suggest that institutional pressure, such as promotion, funding, and recognition, underpin compliance with research ethics, as opposed to internal values about being a "good scientist" (Derrick, 2013 ; Anderson et al., 2018). Cheung et al. ( 2018 ) further remarked that supervisors might encourage productivity instead of integrity, which only serves to reinforce extrinsic motivations. However, other scholars suggested that quality research occurs when ethics is positioned as part of scientific integrity—an accomplishment within itself rather than a transactional requirement (Resnik, 2020 ). This highlights a tension between systemic incentives and the intrinsic motivations of researchers. From a research coordinator's perspective, there is a need to re-frame ethics as part of scientific integrity in which compliance is pursued, not for external reward, but to ensure protection of participants and means to promote knowledge. Research Gap Although studies internationally from Jordan, China, South Africa, the UK, and the US have examined lack of researcher awareness, supervision, and institutional systems, few studies have investigated this in the Saudi context. Furthermore, no study has examined the differences between students, faculty, and coordinators in a systematic way to examine awareness of research ethics, submission practices, barriers, and recommendations related to the ethics of research. This study not only fills this gap using quantitative and qualitative evidence from Saudi institutions, but it acknowledges the unique perspective of a research coordinator who observes these issues and barriers on a daily basis. METHODS Research Design This study employed a cross-sectional descriptive survey design to assess researchers’ awareness, attitudes, and submission practices regarding Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements and research ethics. The study was conducted in Saudi Arabia, and data collection took place between 1 June to 30 August 2025. Participants A total of 915 researchers representing Saudi academic and research institutions received invitations to the participation. Of those, 870 researchers responded yielding a high response rate of 95.1%. The targeted to study included faculty members, post-graduate students, and research staff working with human subjects. Inclusion criteria specified that participant be currently engaged in conducting research during the time of the study and researchers who were not conducting human subject research were excluded. Instrument Data were collected through a structured self-administered questionnaire which was developed by the research team in accordance with institutional policy and existing literature (Davies, 2020 ; Alahmad et al., 2022 ). The questionnaire consisted of three sections; (1) demographic and academic characteristics, (2) awareness of ethical principles and submission requirements, and (3) attitudes and practices related to IRBs/RECs. Content validity was established using expert review of the tool, and the self-administered questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of researchers to confirm clarity and feasibility. A total of 870 valid responses were used in the analysis, and all tables and figures use this number as the denominator. Data Collection Procedure The survey was distributed electronically through institutional mailing lists and professional research groups, and responses were collected over a three-month period. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained prior to beginning the survey. No personal identifiers were collected to ensure participant anonymity. Data Analysis The analysis of data was carried out using Python (version 3.11) and the pertinent statistical libraries (e.g., pandas, scipy and statsmodels). Descriptive statistics were created to summarize demographics queries and outcome measures. Chi-square tests were employed to test associations between categorical variables and significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect sizes (Cramer’s V) were calculated to interpret the strength of associations. Ethics Approval This study was reviewed and approved by the MOH Research Ethics Committee, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Approval No. A02221; Approval Date: 29 May 2025). The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation was voluntary, electronic informed consent was obtained, and responses were anonymized. RESULTS A total of 870 valid responses were analyzed. The results below present the key associations among institutional support and perceived submission ease, submission experience and awareness, and training and confidence (see Table 1). The sample consisted of faculty members, postgraduate students, and research staff from multiple disciplines, providing an overall representation of researchers from academic institutions in Saudi Arabia. Most participants had previously engaged in research requiring IRB/REC approval, allowing for a wider perspective on the ethics of submission. Table 1. Cross-tabulation between institutional support for ethics submissions and ease of submission process. Institutional Support Very Difficult Difficult Neutral Easy Very Easy Row Total Strongly Disagree 35.5% 19.4% 35.5% 6.5% 3.2% 100% Disagree 10.8% 37.3% 45.8% 6.0% 0.0% 100% Neutral 5.4% 25.1% 66.2% 3.0% 0.3% 100% Agree 1.9% 11.8% 62.7% 20.8% 2.8% 100% Strongly Agree 3.1% 15.6% 50.0% 18.8% 12.5% 100% The chi-square test revealed a statistically significant association between institutional support for ethics submissions and the perceived ease of the submission process, χ²(16) = 195.75, p < 0.001, with a small effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.237). Row percentages were calculated so that the total across each row equals 100%, allowing comparison of how respondents within each level of institutional support distributed their responses regarding the ease of submission. For instance, among those who strongly agreed that their institution provides sufficient support, only 3.1% reported that the process was very difficult, 15.6% reported that it was difficult, 50.0% said it was neutral, 18.8% said it was easy, and 12.5% said it was very easy. In contrast, those who strongly disagreed with the statement were over-represented in the "very difficult" category (35.5%). These data support that stronger institutional support resulted in participant perceptions of the ethics committee submission process being easier, whereas weak or non-existent support resulted in perceptions of more difficulty. The effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.237) indicates this is a small but significant association. Awareness of Ethical Protocols Overall, researchers showed moderate degrees of awareness of ethical principles and submission requirements (Table 2 ). Many were able to state the purpose of the IRB review process and recognized the need for an individual to provide informed consent prior to involvement in research with human subjects. However, there were significant gaps around data confidentiality, multicenter studies, and particular procedural requirements for submission. Overall, these findings answer to the first objective of the study, demonstrating the unevenness of awareness while also revealing gaps that require additional training and support. Table 2 Association between submission experience and awareness of research ethics Submission Status Aware n (%) Not Aware n (%) Not Sure n (%) Row Total Not Submitted 169 (49.4%) 65 (19.0%) 108 (31.6%) 342 Submitted 461 (87.3%) 23 (4.4%) 44 (8.3%) 528 Total 630 (72.4%) 88 (10.1%) 152 (17.5%) 870 A chi-square test of independence demonstrated a statistically significant association between submission experience and awareness of research ethics, χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001. Participants who had submitted research proposals were much more likely to report being aware of their institution’s ethics committee (87.3%) compared to only 49.4% among those who had not submitted. The prevalence of uncertainty ("Not Sure") among non-submitters (31.6%) was significantly higher than that among submitters (8.3%). The effect size (Cramer's V = 0.414) demonstrates a strong association, suggesting that submission experience contributes to increased awareness and reduced uncertainty concerning institutional ethics oversight. The cross-sectional design precludes claims of causality; however, the findings underscore the significance of submission experience in enhancing awareness and knowledge of research ethics procedures. This figure illustrates the association between researchers’ submission experience and their awareness of the institutional research ethics committee, including the “Not Sure” category. Of the respondents who provided proposals, 87.3% had experience with the committee, while only 49.4% of the respondents who did not submit a proposal had experience. Non-submitters expressed a lack of experience (19.0%) more than submitters (4.4%), and they also expressed more uncertainty about the experience (31.6%) than submitters (8.3%). A chi-square test of independence confirmed that the relationship between submission status and awareness was statistically significant, χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001, and moderate effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.414). Overall, findings suggest that the experience of submission is strongly linked to both increased awareness and decreased uncertainty relating to institutional ethics oversight. This indicates that being involved directly in the submission process is an important mechanism for enhancing awareness and familiarity with institutional research ethics governance. Submission Practices Across Career Stages and Disciplines Patterns of submission varied considerably depending on academic status and discipline (see Table 3 ). Faculty members were more likely than postgraduate researchers to have submitted research protocols previously, and many postgraduate researchers reported little or no experience submitting protocols to an IRB. For instance, biomedical research reported higher rates of submission than social science research, which highlighted discipline-specific research cultures and ethics oversight. About half of respondents indicated that they found submitting research protocols "challenging" and often named unclear requests, slow review processes, and obtaining approval from advance notice through institutional informed consent obtaining as challenging aspects of the submission process. These findings correspond with our second goal in demonstrating the ways that researcher submission practices differ based on academic status and discipline. Table 3 Association between research ethics training and confidence in understanding ethics protocols Training Status High Confidence Low Confidence Row Total Not Trained 162 (48.5%) 172 (51.5%) 334 Trained 419 (78.2%) 117 (21.8%) 536 Total 581 289 870 Chi-square test : χ²(1, N = 870) = 80.32, p < 0.001 Effect size : Cramer’s V = 0.304 (moderate effect) The analysis indicated a significant relationship between receiving formal research ethics training and confidence in understanding ethics protocols. Of the respondents who report not receiving training, only 48.5% (n = 162) reported high confidence and the remaining 51.5% (n = 172) indicated low confidence. Conversely, of the respondents who report having received training, a larger proportion, or 78.2% (n = 419) reported high confidence in relation to low confidence (i.e., 21.8%, n = 117). The chi-square test confirmed this was significant, (χ²(1) = 80.32, p < 0.001), and Cramer’s V-effect size was 0.304 suggesting a moderate effect size. This suggests that participation in formal research ethics training is associated with a clear improvement in researchers’ confidence. The stacked bar chart shows that among respondents who did not receive training, 48.5% reported high confidence, while 51.5% reported low confidence. In contrast, among those who received training, 78.2% reported high confidence and only 21.8% reported low confidence. A chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between training and confidence (χ²(1) = 80.32, p < 0.001). The effect size (Cramer's V = 0.304) suggests a moderate association. Our results indicate a moderate effect of training on levels of confidence, similar to global evidence that having structured ethics training substantively increases competency level of researchers. Barriers to Engaging with Ethics Committees The relationship between awareness of an ethics committee and the submission of research protocols is reported in Table 4 and has been represented in Fig. 3 . Among participants who were aware of the committee (n = 630), 73.2% had submitted at least one protocol, compared to only 26.1% of those not aware (n = 88). Participants who were uncertain (“Not Sure,” n = 152) showed similarly low engagement, with only 28.9% reporting submissions. The chi-square test of independence across the three knowledge levels yielded a statistically significant relationship between awareness and submission status, χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001, with a moderate-to-strong effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.414). The data indicated that increased awareness of the ethics committee was highly correlated with participation in submission, whereas not being aware or unsure of whether one had an ethics committee to be aware of had significantly lower rates of submission. Row percentages were calculated such that each awareness group would total 100%, which meant that row percentages reflect the distribution of submission behavior in each group. For example, among those participants who were aware of their institution’s ethics committee, 73.2% had submitted at least one protocol, while for 26.8%, submission did not occur. In the “Not Aware” group, 26.1% had submitted while 73.9% had not, while in the “Not Sure” group, 28.9% had submitted compared with 71.1% who had not. This method facilitates comparison across groups without implying that 100% represents the entire sample. Table 4 Association between awareness of the ethics committee and submission of research protocols Awareness of the Ethics Committee Not Submitted Submitted Row Total (%) Aware (n = 630) 169 (26.8%) 461 (73.2%) 100% Not Aware (n = 88) 65 (73.9%) 23 (26.1%) 100% Not Sure (n = 152) 108 (71.1%) 44 (28.9%) 100% Total (N = 870) 342 (39.3%) 528 (60.7%) 100% Chi-square test : χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001 Effect size : (Cramer’s V) = 0.414 (medium-to-strong effect) These findings highlight that institutional awareness is a critical facilitator of engagement with IRBs/RECs. Researchers who are unaware—or uncertain—are much less likely to follow submission procedures. This indicates that gaps in communication within an institution function as structural barriers, and add to other challenges such as limited training; bureaucratic delays; and insufficient support from mentors. Addressing these barriers in a comprehensive way is key for enacting ethical compliance at varying levels of academia. (A) Distribution of responses to the open-ended question “What do you understand by research ethics?” Responses were manually categorized into seven groups. The majority provided objective definitions (41.3%), such as emphasizing the protection of participants or the integrity of procedures. A considerable proportion gave unclear (23.8%) or incomplete responses (14.0%), while descriptive (13.7%), procedural (3.5%), subjective (2.6%), and analytical (1.2%) answers were less common. This distribution highlights that while many respondents have a clear grasp of research ethics, a substantial subset still struggles with a vague or partial understanding. (B) Ethics Awareness Index is a combined record of different elements of ethics awareness. More than half of the participants demonstrated high awareness (56.1%), whereas 37.8% were classified as having low awareness, and only 6.0% showed moderate awareness. This suggests a polarization in the sample: most either have a strong understanding of ethics or a limited one, with few in-between. Qualitative Insights into Research Ethics Definitions In addition to closed-ended survey items, participants were asked to provide open-ended definitions of research ethics. They analyzed the contents of their responses through a word frequency approach which was then portrayed as a word cloud (Fig. 5 ). This qualitative analysis is representative of the key terms focused on by respondents, providing a more nuanced perspective of how researchers conceptualize what research ethics is in a personal sense beyond the established questionnaire items. The word cloud illustrates the frequency distribution of terms found in respondents' open-ended definitions of research ethics. The frequently mentioned terms included “research,” “ethics,” “participants,” “principle,” “guideline,” “respect,” and “integrity,” highlighting the themes and topics prioritized by respondents. The size of the word corresponds to its frequency, meaning a larger term is observed more frequently in the dataset. Also, notable terms that emerged included “privacy,” “protection,” “confidentiality,” and “harm,” which shows the respondents are aware of the rights of participants and protection of data. This visualization represents qualitative insight into researchers’ conceptualizations of research ethics, mostly highlighting principles, respect, and protection of participants. DISCUSSION This study investigated researchers’ awareness, submission patterns, barriers, and recommendations regarding ethical protocols in Saudi institutions. The findings indicate variations in awareness, irregular submission patterns across different career stages and disciplines, as well as systemic obstacles to compliance. The findings align with international literature and underscore distinct institutional challenges in Saudi Arabia. Awareness of Ethical Protocols Our findings demonstrate that researchers with prior submission experience held markedly higher awareness of ethical research protocols (87.3% aware when previously submitted or participating vs 49.4% among those never submitted or participated), while the degree of uncertainty (‘Not sure’) was twice as prevalent for those researchers who had no submission experience (8.3%) than those with submission experience (31.6%). The findings were statistically significant (χ²(2) = 149.40, p < 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.414). The degree of awareness shown here resonates with that of findings in Jordan and South Africa where students’ and junior researchers' knowledge and experience of IRB/similar processes and ethical guidelines was limited (Davies, 2020 ; Abu-Zaid & Alkabba, 2020 ). In China, younger researchers also exhibited a lack of comprehension regarding confidentiality and data protection laws (Zhang et al., 2021 ). In the US, and other high-income contexts, inconsistent awareness of similar IRB processes has been documented as a consistent issue (Brown, 2020 ). From a coordinator’s perspective, this suggests that practical exposure to submission processes is itself an important form of training—yet one that many students lack until late in their studies. Without structured ethics education, awareness develops unevenly, leaving many early-career researchers unprepared for compliance. Submission Practices Across Career Stages and Disciplines The practices in submissions exhibited substantial variability between disciplines and career stages. Compared to postgraduate students and social science researchers, faculty and biomedical researchers were far more likely to have submitted a proposal. These differences are somewhat indicative of disciplinary research cultures, notably in the UK and United States where biomedical researchers tend to enforce ethics training more prescriptively than those in social branches (Head, 2018 ; Stommel, Rijk, 2021 ). Training was also found to be important in this study: 78.2% of individuals who received training noted high confidence in applying ethics protocols compared to 48.5% of those who did not receive training. Similar improvements were also reported in Korea and Europe when protocols faced ethics training, greatly increasing compliance and diminishing rejection rates (Kim et al., 2022 ; Klitzman, 2019 ). As a coordinator, I see this discrepancy unfolding daily; students will arrive with little guidance from the supervisor and trainings sometimes fall into optional status rather than integral to the roles of oversight for research ethics. This then produces differences in confidence in various stages of the submissions in different fields, creating a learning culture of ethics as roadblock rather than a fundamental responsibility of research. Barriers to Engaging with Ethics Committees Participants perceived inadequate training, time delays driven by bureaucracy, and lack of oversight and supervision as significant obstacles. Our findings align with previous reports from Africa and the Middle East, indicating that ethics committees encounter challenges related to slow review processes and limited capacity (Davies, 2020 ; Hayward et al., 2021 ). In multisite studies, response times, variations across sites, and fragmentation of the research ethics boards also present enormous challenges (Klitzman, 2019 ). Bureaucracy is not just an abstract complaint, for coordinators it becomes a practical barrier to researchers submitting in a timely fashion. Additionally, if practicality is not tempered with supervision from a supervisor who does not offer guidance to students, this might exacerbate the coordination issue, putting a heavier workload on the coordinator. Therefore, it is no surprise to learn that in this study, postgraduate students reported higher levels of difficulty and lower levels of confidence for their submission. Qualitative Insights into Research Ethics Definitions The analysis of open-ended responses and the word cloud revealed a recurring theme characterized by terms such as "ethics," "participants," "respect," and "integrity," alongside references to "privacy," "protection," and "confidentiality." The findings align with research from Canada and the UK, indicating that while researchers articulated their moral values in defining ethics, they lacked clarity on the implementation of ethical practices (Hayward et al., 2021 ; Head, 2018 ). This disjunction; understanding the need for principles but difficulties when applying them, is representative of what coordinators often see; researchers understand ethics is important in principle but do not realize the procedural rigor they are required to demonstrate in order to protect their participants in practice. Recommendations for Improvement Both the participants consistently suggested the need for formal training in ethics, easier digital platforms, and an increase in engagement from supervisors. These suggestions are consistent with the conclusions from studies conducted in both China and Australia, which found the presence of a digitized submission system resulted in reduced administrative burden and improved transparency and accountability (Zhang et al., 2021 ; Brown, 2020 ). Supervisor training has similarly been emphasized by researchers in Europe and North America where supervisors, as mentors, are seen as ethical role models for their students (Cheung et al., 2018 ). From a coordinator's perspective, these recommendations are also similar to lived realities. Training and educational mentorship need to be more than just additional options; they need to be institutionalized. Similarly, the use of digital platforms would improve not only efficiency but would also allow researchers to feel compliance to be a part of good science rather than a bureaucratic hassle. CONCLUSION This study found that although Saudi institutions have institutional review boards, awareness of and submission practices related to research ethics continue to be inconsistent, especially amongst postgraduate students and early-career researchers. The results indicated that experience with submissions and formal training are significantly related to higher levels of awareness and confidence while barriers such as insufficient training, bureaucratic delays, and inadequate supervision continue to inhibit compliance. Qualitative responses also indicated that while researchers value principles such as integrity, respect toward participants, and protection of participant safety, many of them are unable to translate their perspective into practices when making submissions. The recommendations made by participants—structured ethics training, improved digital submission processes, and engagement of supervisors—demonstrated local relevance and international best practices. Addressing these issues will close the gap between policy and practice in ways that allow ethics review processes to be acknowledged as contributing to ethical practices, rather than bureaucratic obstacles to conducting research. As a research coordinator, the findings speak to the need for a research culture where the normative ethical practice is upheld as a scientific value, rather than done to garner prestige or as an external motivation while being a relatively rare occurrence. Universities and research institutions should prioritize the implementation of systematic education on research ethics, provide mentorship to students, and promote a transparent submission system to review bodies that facilitates meaningful interaction with the ethical review process. Conducting ethical research will ensure the protection of research participants' well-being, enhance compliance, and maintain the overall quality and credibility of research. Recommendation This study's findings lead to several practical recommendations to enhance awareness of ethics and submission to ethics committees in Saudi institutions and other contexts. Institutionalize Research Ethics Training at All Career Stages Ethics training should be mandatory for all undergraduate, postgraduate, and early-career researchers. Workshops that are scheduled regularly, combined with curriculum elements in ethics, would serve to elevate awareness of ethical principles, conditions for informed consent, and data protection, to a level where issues related to matters are not left to an individual's responsibility but systematically built into the development of researchers. Develop Easier Digital Submission Platforms Timely, transparent online systems will reduce delays in processing, as well as engage researchers more effectively with ethics committees. As witnessed in studies in China and Australia, ethics management through a digitized system improves efficiencies, accountability, and consistency (Zhang, et al., 2021 ; Brown, 2020 ). Increase Supervisor Training and Mentorship Supervisors are an effective means of supporting their students in research proposal preparation and submission of ethical approval. Robust supervisor training programs would be a requirement to ensure that supervisors act as ethical models of the responsible practices of researchers (as recommended in Europe and North America) (Cheung, et al., 2018 ). Promote a Culture of Ethics as Scientific Integrity, Not Bureaucracy Ethics should be embraced as a safeguard for participants and a marker of scientific integrity rather than a procedural barrier or a pathway to recognition. Cultivating this mindset requires institutional commitment, leadership support, and the active involvement of research coordinators in bridging policy and practice. Implementing these measures allows universities and research institutions to address the identified gaps, reduce barriers to ethical compliance, and enhance the credibility and integrity of scientific research. Declarations Author Contribution RB – Primary author. Conceptualized the study, designed the research instrument, performed the statistical report, and prepared the initial draft of the manuscript.NQ – Provided overall validation, critical review, and supervision throughout the research process, ensuring methodological rigor and compliance with ethical standards.RH – Conducted the statistical analysis, assisted in data interpretation, and contributed to the visualization of results and preparation of tables and figures.MDG – Wrote and edited the final version of the paper, enhanced the discussion and conclusion sections, ensured alignment with journal submission standards, and handled the overall manuscript refinement and formatting.WB – Assisted in data collection and verification, contributed to literature review synthesis, and participated in reviewing and revising the manuscript for intellectual content.SJ – Contributed to the interpretation of findings, proofreading, and final quality assurance of the manuscript, ensuring coherence between the quantitative and qualitative results.All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. References Abdullah LAH. Common mistakes committed and challenges faced in research proposal writing by University of Aden postgraduate students. J Social Sci. 2023;29(1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.20428/jss.v29i1.2070 . Abu-Zaid A, Alkabba AF. Perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards research ethics and institutional review boards: A cross-sectional study from Saudi Arabia. J Fam Commun Med. 2020;27(2):112–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_85_19 . Alostath K. (2020). Graduate students’ challenges in academic writing: A study of MA thesis proposals. Journal of Language and Education Research, 7(2), 45–58. Alotaibi R. Barriers in ethical proposal submission among Saudi postgraduate students: A cross-sectional analysis. Saudi J Educ. 2021;35(4):211–9. Alahmad G, Al Rashed A, Almutairi A, AlKhalaf M. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors in Jordan. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00750-7 . Bierer BE, Barnes M, Lynch HF. The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies. J Clin Translational Sci. 2019;3(2–3):129–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.392 . Brown T. The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? Br Edu Res J. 2020;46(4):688–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3609 . Bruton SV, Medlin C, Brown M, Sacco DF. Personal motivations and systemic incentives: Scientists on questionable research practices. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(3):1531–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00121-8 . Cheung G, Friedman SH, Ng L, Cullum S. Supervising trainees in research: What does it take to be a scholarly project supervisor? Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(4):500–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-018-0886-4 . Davies S. The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: Review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee. Res Ethics. 2020;16(1–2):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898408 . Derrick GE. The role of research incentives in medical research organisations. R&D Manage. 2013;43(4):318–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12015 . Dove ES, Özdemir V. (2014). What role for law, human rights, and bioethics in an age of big data, consortia science, and consortia ethics? Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 170–197. https://doi.org/10.5235/17579961.6.2.170 Haven TL, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G. Superb supervision: Training supervisors to convey responsible research practices to their PhD candidates. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023;29(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00385-7 . Hayward C, Morton Ninomiya ME, Beaton A. A new era of Indigenous research: Community-based Indigenous research ethics protocols in Canada. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):237–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211017505 . Head E. Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development. Eur Educational Res J. 2018;17(1):39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117708126 . Kim SY, Kim JM, Kim SW. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors in Korea. Korean J Med Ethics. 2022;22(2):132–40. https://doi.org/10.35301/ksme.2022.22.2.132 . Klitzman R. Local knowledge and single IRBs for multisite studies: Challenges and solutions. Ethics Hum Res. 2019;41(2):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500010 . Liu X, Li S, Zhang Y. Knowledge and attitudes toward research ethics among Chinese postgraduate students: A cross-sectional study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023;18(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231123456 . McCausland D, Haigh M, McCallion P, McCarron M. IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). HRB Open Res. 2024;7:3. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1 . Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986 . Qadir MI. The role of research supervisors in implementing ethical practices in social science research. Int J Social Res. 2021;19(3):45–59. Resnik DB. (2020). What Is Ethics in Research & Why Is It Important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm Stommel J, Rijk L. Ethical approval, none sought: How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Qualitative Inq. 2021;27(7):847–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420936234 . Zhang Y, Li X, Chen H. Research ethics knowledge, attitudes, and practices among medical researchers in China: A cross-sectional survey. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(10):676–83. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106895 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Medical Ethics → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 14 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 13 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 20 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7902776","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":532775249,"identity":"1e3bcbf5-0aa0-46a0-9e72-7062a61265c1","order_by":0,"name":"Roaa Bogdadi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Abdullah Medical Complex in Jeddah","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Roaa","middleName":"","lastName":"Bogdadi","suffix":""},{"id":532775250,"identity":"b1b0005f-68fd-48df-9fcb-fa16a1125c3d","order_by":1,"name":"Dr. Nahid Qushmaq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Abdullah Medical Complex in Jeddah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Nahid","middleName":"","lastName":"Qushmaq","suffix":""},{"id":532775251,"identity":"12514fd4-505e-4d2e-9e02-0325c76a7bba","order_by":2,"name":"Eng. Rahaf Al Hasheem","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"KeyLife Electronics \u0026 At Pioneers Academy Jordan-Amman in Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eng.","middleName":"Rahaf Al","lastName":"Hasheem","suffix":""},{"id":532775252,"identity":"efb583b1-d933-4200-8e37-3987b073b6eb","order_by":3,"name":"Dr. Marivel Guzman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Research and Development Assistant Company","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Marivel","middleName":"","lastName":"Guzman","suffix":""},{"id":532775253,"identity":"2c570e56-2008-4fb8-a8cd-f86c6f430a22","order_by":4,"name":"Wijdan Baeshen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Health Branch in Jeddah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wijdan","middleName":"","lastName":"Baeshen","suffix":""},{"id":532775254,"identity":"6445b821-b786-41bf-9f45-baa5691079ea","order_by":5,"name":"Sarah Aljeaid","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Health Branch in Jeddah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Aljeaid","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-20 06:38:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x","type":"published","date":"2026-01-17T16:30:03+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94056194,"identity":"94966d61-bb09-4511-9a72-af2d61ea57f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:50:32","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":469856,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscriptAwarenessandBarrierstoIRBSubmissionsFINAL.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/215dc9ffe359ee74145d610c.docx"},{"id":94055688,"identity":"ab33a629-dd42-4261-b51b-0aef87b63912","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8597,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f2fe444e5d0744ffb5645cd8fb914f7b.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/86fe6e2cfec7d31716538cda.json"},{"id":94056380,"identity":"a0273756-8d13-45b6-82e6-f465c8ce8b4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:58:32","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":104381,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f2fe444e5d0744ffb5645cd8fb914f7b1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/d642d487a9d3a841dc25ef11.xml"},{"id":94055949,"identity":"5cb0c978-0e90-4df1-a1e0-0b5cbfc31651","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:42:32","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/c28f205467c6bdf48608ef19.png"},{"id":94055695,"identity":"b5f466a0-e7d3-4305-a186-7610d51cd566","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13468,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/7c5c7104e83b4813b1c717f5.png"},{"id":94055951,"identity":"f0e32fbf-8d7f-49bd-ba3b-ba093c9b5e10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:42:32","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/b9e47b9d62673b3683354a90.png"},{"id":94055694,"identity":"8b7679d0-58f6-4cac-933a-2728f09be617","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/226bc169e0cb66054bc0e293.png"},{"id":94055953,"identity":"e3507ca9-d55e-4c2d-83b2-f3148ae9275f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:42:32","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":63286,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/fc49997f6024c2791109ecf6.png"},{"id":94055699,"identity":"2c90baa7-32af-4282-80e4-975767824198","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":95223,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f2fe444e5d0744ffb5645cd8fb914f7b1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/7ae1326a7004f25371d2b9ff.xml"},{"id":94055700,"identity":"162ebd46-ca89-4ab8-b83b-136371f515cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/87bcf4b35a139765bc49e24c.html"},{"id":94055685,"identity":"8dcfdc72-b8c7-4b4b-b00d-5f5c51d7faa2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35328,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between submission to an ethics committee and awareness of the committee\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/140393a0fba4f9bd458558ef.png"},{"id":94055948,"identity":"d166d66d-2ef5-4dbb-8acf-9eff2c83c576","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:42:32","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35763,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAssociation between research ethics training and confidence in RE protocols.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/556c0d4c4bc5bc734a298b26.png"},{"id":94055687,"identity":"83e27199-b4f1-490e-88fc-57c2ddde897f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAwareness of the ethics committee and the likelihood of submitting a protocol.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/f394f20de999aaf67485f7f8.png"},{"id":94055696,"identity":"49363476-859d-48c2-89b8-75521f4f40b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53876,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOpen-ended definitions of research ethics and overall awareness index among participants.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/860c6bc2a9172beb69046875.png"},{"id":94055692,"identity":"12968128-8753-4f3e-96cf-4bc539a12944","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-22 03:34:32","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":252578,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWord cloud of the most frequent terms in participants’ definitions of research ethics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/6d6cd6fe2badf40294072cf2.png"},{"id":100614793,"identity":"1802da7f-65ca-46bc-b136-08159f9e222d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:25:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1449558,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7902776/v1/e0890339-a158-42bf-948f-b761c3accb02.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Researcher Awareness and Submission Practices to Ethics Committees in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe processes of ethical approval are fundamental in safeguarding human participants and securing the reputation of science. The main mechanism for enforcing ethical standards in the research context is the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Research Ethics Committees (RECs). These mechanisms safeguard the conduct of research in an ethical manner, demonstrating integrity, respect, and accountability. Nonetheless, despite the importance of these processes, issues with awareness, compliance, and procedures persist across varying contexts of research. Lack of understanding about ethical processes has been shown to delay obtaining project approval, impair protections for human participants, and jeopardize the reputation of the institution (Resnik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Recent studies demonstrate that even in well-established research systems, investigators experience annoyance with bureaucratic delays, lack of clarity in submission processes, and inconsistent reviews (McCausland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These continuing challenges highlight that ethical oversight is not only a matter of policy but also of practice and researcher preparedness, making it a global concern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence from across the globe demonstrates the universality of these concerns. In the example of South Africa, the new ethics review process revealed ongoing issues with student submissions reflecting lack of preparedness and that subsequently resulted in multiple submissions (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the United Kingdom, researchers have frequently indicated that they viewed IRBs as obstructive rather than facilitating as a result of enforced driving rules and long review times (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Head, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Research in China shows sustained gaps in understanding ethics, especially concerning informed consent and data privacy, and early-career researchers reported limited training in official protocols (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers in the United States similarly expressed concerns about inefficiencies in multicenter reviews and a lack of harmonization between committees (Stommel \u0026amp; Rijk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Likewise, research emerging from the Middle East regarding medical trainees and postgraduate students lessened awareness of fundamental principles of research ethics was associated with inconsistency towards compliance (AlKabba et al., 2012). Together, these studies illustrate that challenges with ethics review are not found in one region, but range across multiple countries and regions into high- and middle-income settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith regard to research ethics review, there have been marked improvements in Saudi Arabia in recent years. The National Committee of Bioethics (NCBE) has developed extensive regulations to provide standards for ethical review across institutions, and the majority of universities have their own internal review boards (IRBs). Nevertheless, practical challenges remain. Research indicates that even when regulations exist, many researchers, especially students and junior researchers, perceive challenges with respect to ethical duties in their research (Alahmad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Supervisors have different abilities to assist students with developing their proposals, with some students not being able to prepare a proposal without significant help. Coordinators/administrators, who assist students with this work, often have a large bureaucratic burden to do their work, which slows down the process and may decrease the researchers' motivation. These are concerns that emphasize the gap between how formal regulatory structures exist and the experiences of those who are navigating them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough there is international and regional research indicating a lack of awareness and practices related to research ethics, there is little evidence of Saudi researchers\u0026rsquo; experiences and their understanding of ethical protocols, submission practices, and barriers. Additionally, only a small number of studies offer perspectives about researchers along career trajectories and across disciplines, leaving to question how the experiences of students and faculty researchers, and research staff may differ. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to systematically examine researchers\u0026rsquo; awareness, submission practices, and barriers at Saudi institutions, and make recommendations for improvement in ethics education and submission processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMain Objectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess researchers\u0026rsquo; awareness, attitudes, and submission practices regarding ethical protocols and IRB requirements in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSpecific Objectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssess researchers\u0026rsquo; level of awareness of ethical protocols and submission requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eExamine submission practices to ethics committees across different disciplines and career stages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdentify the barriers researchers encounter when engaging with ethics committees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvide recommendations for improving ethics training and submission practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSignificance of the Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is important as it helps bridge the gap between policy and practice. The work produced from this study will help universities and research organizations strengthen training, streamline submission, and enhance ethical compliance. As a research organization, this is particularly important from a research coordinator's perspective. Even though students have been formally assigned to a supervisor, inevitably they are often still not ready to write proposals independently, which signifies weak areas of training and mentorship for students. Some researchers also approach ethics compliance as a transaction expecting some type of recognition or value from the administration, rather than seeing it as a scientific responsibility; two ideas that are inconsistent with each other. These instances belittle the very essence of ethical review: to protect participants and the integrity of research. By considering ethics as a scientific value and achievement in and of itself, this study provides evidence of that can prompt a culture of integrity, respect and responsibility of which institutions in Saudi Arabia may be better able to promote in their research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe ethical approval process is vital in protecting human participants and ensuring the advancement of trustworthy scientific research. IRBs and RECs are the main strategies by which research will honor ethical guidelines. Despite a global emphasis on ethics, awareness of and practices related to IRBs are inconsistent across settings, resulting in delays, non-compliance and in some cases breaches of ethics. In the literature, several repetitive challenges are clearly pertinent to this study, falling into four key areas: (1) difficulties with proposal writing, (2) inadequacies in supervision and training, (3) coordinator and administrative load within IRB processes, and (4) a contrast between intrinsic worth of the science, and extrinsic worth of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudents’ Struggles with Research Proposals\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEvidence suggests that students encounter a number of difficulties in developing research proposals, especially related to the research problem, the approach methodology, and ethical alignment. For example, case studies from Indonesia and Malaysia identified that undergraduate and graduate students had little to no training in proposal writing, and their proposals altogether missed large sections, writing ideas, and had little to no clear meaning (Alostath, 2021; UIN Ar-Raniry Repository, 2020). Very similar conclusions were drawn in South Africa, where institutional reviews of student researchers showed students were resubmitting proposals a number of times, mainly due to errors (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These issues indicate that students have little to no experience with research ethics during their training programs and are dependent on supervisors to help navigate understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWeakness in Supervision and Training\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffective supervision is necessary for assuring ethical and high-quality research. However, shortcomings in supervisory practices are prevalent. Cheung, Friedman, Ng, \u0026amp; Cullum (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) reported that many supervisors do not receive purposeful training in mentoring trainees on ethical or scholarly projects to adapt to funding agency regulations. A pilot study of supervisor training demonstrated that if supervisors were not trained systematically, they could unintentionally transmit poor practice that results in insufficiency to comply with ethical standards (Halim, 2021). Notably, studies in higher education noted that gaps in supervisor training are influential in inconsistent quality of student proposals, and in breaching a mutual agreement to be ethical participants (Head, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Findings by Cheung, et al. and Halim, also correspond to the barriers in the present study where postgraduate students frequently reported not having enough support from their supervisors was a primary barrier in figuring out the submission process to the funding agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCoordinator and Administrator Burdens in IRB Systems\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) are an important component of maintaining ethical practices, while the coordinators and administrators engaged with these processes are often expected to work out convoluted, often bureaucratic, processes. For example, in South Africa, research has reported that ethics committees were routinely criticized for slow timelines for review, vague or ambiguous requirements, and burdensome administrative requirements (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly in the U.K., educational researchers noted that ethics committees were sometimes viewed as \"foes\" rather than allies due to overly constituted instances of guidance and variability in the guidance (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Head, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The realities associated with multi-institutional studies are even more complex. Klitzman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) described the interpretation of local knowledge as an amalgam to the inconsistencies in interpretation that delineated a structural concept for review, while Stommel and Rijk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) provided of an example of online researchers not only having to address continuing changes but also having to reconcile changes with currently approved forms. Viewed from the coordinator's perspective, these burdens are not just abstract but lived experiences as administrators and coordinators are often expected to navigate the relationship between the expectations of policy and struggles encountered by the researcher.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIncentives versus Intrinsic Scientific Value\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother recurrent point in the literature is the influence of incentives on the behavior of researchers. Studies suggest that institutional pressure, such as promotion, funding, and recognition, underpin compliance with research ethics, as opposed to internal values about being a \"good scientist\" (Derrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Anderson et al., 2018). Cheung et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) further remarked that supervisors might encourage productivity instead of integrity, which only serves to reinforce extrinsic motivations. However, other scholars suggested that quality research occurs when ethics is positioned as part of scientific integrity—an accomplishment within itself rather than a transactional requirement (Resnik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This highlights a tension between systemic incentives and the intrinsic motivations of researchers. From a research coordinator's perspective, there is a need to re-frame ethics as part of scientific integrity in which compliance is pursued, not for external reward, but to ensure protection of participants and means to promote knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Gap\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough studies internationally from Jordan, China, South Africa, the UK, and the US have examined lack of researcher awareness, supervision, and institutional systems, few studies have investigated this in the Saudi context. Furthermore, no study has examined the differences between students, faculty, and coordinators in a systematic way to examine awareness of research ethics, submission practices, barriers, and recommendations related to the ethics of research. This study not only fills this gap using quantitative and qualitative evidence from Saudi institutions, but it acknowledges the unique perspective of a research coordinator who observes these issues and barriers on a daily basis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study employed a cross-sectional descriptive survey design to assess researchers’ awareness, attitudes, and submission practices regarding Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements and research ethics. The study was conducted in Saudi Arabia, and data collection took place between 1 June to 30 August 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e A total of 915 researchers representing Saudi academic and research institutions received invitations to the participation. Of those, 870 researchers responded yielding a high response rate of 95.1%. The targeted to study included faculty members, post-graduate students, and research staff working with human subjects. Inclusion criteria specified that participant be currently engaged in conducting research during the time of the study and researchers who were not conducting human subject research were excluded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInstrument\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were collected through a structured self-administered questionnaire which was developed by the research team in accordance with institutional policy and existing literature (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Alahmad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The questionnaire consisted of three sections; (1) demographic and academic characteristics, (2) awareness of ethical principles and submission requirements, and (3) attitudes and practices related to IRBs/RECs. Content validity was established using expert review of the tool, and the self-administered questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of researchers to confirm clarity and feasibility. A total of 870 valid responses were used in the analysis, and all tables and figures use this number as the denominator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Collection Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey was distributed electronically through institutional mailing lists and professional research groups, and responses were collected over a three-month period. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained prior to beginning the survey. No personal identifiers were collected to ensure participant anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of data was carried out using Python (version 3.11) and the pertinent statistical libraries (e.g., pandas, scipy and statsmodels). Descriptive statistics were created to summarize demographics queries and outcome measures. Chi-square tests were employed to test associations between categorical variables and significance was set at p \u0026lt; 0.05. Effect sizes (Cramer’s V) were calculated to interpret the strength of associations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was reviewed and approved by the MOH Research Ethics Committee, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Approval No. A02221; Approval Date: 29 May 2025). The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation was voluntary, electronic informed consent was obtained, and responses were anonymized.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 870 valid responses were analyzed. The results below present the key associations among institutional support and perceived submission ease, submission experience and awareness, and training and confidence (see Table\u0026nbsp;1). The sample consisted of faculty members, postgraduate students, and research staff from multiple disciplines, providing an overall representation of researchers from academic institutions in Saudi Arabia. Most participants had previously engaged in research requiring IRB/REC approval, allowing for a wider perspective on the ethics of submission. \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/b\u003e Cross-tabulation between institutional support for ethics submissions and ease of submission process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVery Difficult\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeutral\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVery Easy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRow Total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrongly Disagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeutral\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.9%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrongly Agree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.6%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe chi-square test revealed a statistically significant association between institutional support for ethics submissions and the perceived ease of the submission process, χ\u0026sup2;(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195.75, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, with a small effect size (Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.237). Row percentages were calculated so that the total across each row equals 100%, allowing comparison of how respondents within each level of institutional support distributed their responses regarding the ease of submission. For instance, among those who strongly agreed that their institution provides sufficient support, only 3.1% reported that the process was very difficult, 15.6% reported that it was difficult, 50.0% said it was neutral, 18.8% said it was easy, and 12.5% said it was very easy. In contrast, those who strongly disagreed with the statement were over-represented in the \"very difficult\" category (35.5%). These data support that stronger institutional support resulted in participant perceptions of the ethics committee submission process being easier, whereas weak or non-existent support resulted in perceptions of more difficulty. The effect size (Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.237) indicates this is a small but significant association.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness of Ethical Protocols\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, researchers showed moderate degrees of awareness of ethical principles and submission requirements (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Many were able to state the purpose of the IRB review process and recognized the need for an individual to provide informed consent prior to involvement in research with human subjects. However, there were significant gaps around data confidentiality, multicenter studies, and particular procedural requirements for submission. Overall, these findings answer to the first objective of the study, demonstrating the unevenness of awareness while also revealing gaps that require additional training and support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssociation between submission experience and awareness of research ethics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubmission Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAware n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Aware n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Sure n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRow Total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Submitted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e169 (49.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65 (19.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108 (31.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e342\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubmitted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e461 (87.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23 (4.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44 (8.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e528\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e630 (72.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e88 (10.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e152 (17.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e870\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA chi-square test of independence demonstrated a statistically significant association between submission experience and awareness of research ethics, χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. Participants who had submitted research proposals were much more likely to report being aware of their institution\u0026rsquo;s ethics committee (87.3%) compared to only 49.4% among those who had not submitted. The prevalence of uncertainty (\"Not Sure\") among non-submitters (31.6%) was significantly higher than that among submitters (8.3%). The effect size (Cramer's V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414) demonstrates a strong association, suggesting that submission experience contributes to increased awareness and reduced uncertainty concerning institutional ethics oversight. The cross-sectional design precludes claims of causality; however, the findings underscore the significance of submission experience in enhancing awareness and knowledge of research ethics procedures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis figure illustrates the association between researchers\u0026rsquo; submission experience and their awareness of the institutional research ethics committee, including the \u0026ldquo;Not Sure\u0026rdquo; category. Of the respondents who provided proposals, 87.3% had experience with the committee, while only 49.4% of the respondents who did not submit a proposal had experience. Non-submitters expressed a lack of experience (19.0%) more than submitters (4.4%), and they also expressed more uncertainty about the experience (31.6%) than submitters (8.3%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA chi-square test of independence confirmed that the relationship between submission status and awareness was statistically significant, χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, and moderate effect size (Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414). Overall, findings suggest that the experience of submission is strongly linked to both increased awareness and decreased uncertainty relating to institutional ethics oversight. This indicates that being involved directly in the submission process is an important mechanism for enhancing awareness and familiarity with institutional research ethics governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSubmission Practices Across Career Stages and Disciplines\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePatterns of submission varied considerably depending on academic status and discipline (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Faculty members were more likely than postgraduate researchers to have submitted research protocols previously, and many postgraduate researchers reported little or no experience submitting protocols to an IRB. For instance, biomedical research reported higher rates of submission than social science research, which highlighted discipline-specific research cultures and ethics oversight. About half of respondents indicated that they found submitting research protocols \"challenging\" and often named unclear requests, slow review processes, and obtaining approval from advance notice through institutional informed consent obtaining as challenging aspects of the submission process. These findings correspond with our second goal in demonstrating the ways that researcher submission practices differ based on academic status and discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssociation between research ethics training and confidence in understanding ethics protocols\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh Confidence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow Confidence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRow Total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Trained\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e162 (48.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e172 (51.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e334\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrained\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e419 (78.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e117 (21.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e536\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e581\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e289\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e870\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eChi-square test\u003c/em\u003e: χ\u0026sup2;(1, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;870)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect size\u003c/em\u003e: Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.304 (moderate effect)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis indicated a significant relationship between receiving formal research ethics training and confidence in understanding ethics protocols. Of the respondents who report not receiving training, only 48.5% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;162) reported high confidence and the remaining 51.5% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;172) indicated low confidence. Conversely, of the respondents who report having received training, a larger proportion, or 78.2% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;419) reported high confidence in relation to low confidence (i.e., 21.8%, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;117).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe chi-square test confirmed this was significant, (χ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V-effect size was 0.304 suggesting a moderate effect size. This suggests that participation in formal research ethics training is associated with a clear improvement in researchers\u0026rsquo; confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe stacked bar chart shows that among respondents who did not receive training, 48.5% reported high confidence, while 51.5% reported low confidence. In contrast, among those who received training, 78.2% reported high confidence and only 21.8% reported low confidence. A chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association between training and confidence (χ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The effect size (Cramer's V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.304) suggests a moderate association. Our results indicate a moderate effect of training on levels of confidence, similar to global evidence that having structured ethics training substantively increases competency level of researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBarriers to Engaging with Ethics Committees\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between awareness of an ethics committee and the submission of research protocols is reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and has been represented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Among participants who were aware of the committee (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;630), 73.2% had submitted at least one protocol, compared to only 26.1% of those not aware (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88). Participants who were uncertain (\u0026ldquo;Not Sure,\u0026rdquo; n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;152) showed similarly low engagement, with only 28.9% reporting submissions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe chi-square test of independence across the three knowledge levels yielded a statistically significant relationship between awareness and submission status, χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, with a moderate-to-strong effect size (Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414). The data indicated that increased awareness of the ethics committee was highly correlated with participation in submission, whereas not being aware or unsure of whether one had an ethics committee to be aware of had significantly lower rates of submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRow percentages were calculated such that each awareness group would total 100%, which meant that row percentages reflect the distribution of submission behavior in each group. For example, among those participants who were aware of their institution\u0026rsquo;s ethics committee, 73.2% had submitted at least one protocol, while for 26.8%, submission did not occur. In the \u0026ldquo;Not Aware\u0026rdquo; group, 26.1% had submitted while 73.9% had not, while in the \u0026ldquo;Not Sure\u0026rdquo; group, 28.9% had submitted compared with 71.1% who had not. This method facilitates comparison across groups without implying that 100% represents the entire sample.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssociation between awareness of the ethics committee and submission of research protocols\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness of the Ethics Committee\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Submitted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubmitted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRow Total (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAware (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;630)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e169 (26.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e461 (73.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Aware (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65 (73.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23 (26.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Sure (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;152)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108 (71.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44 (28.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;870)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e342 (39.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e528 (60.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eChi-square test\u003c/em\u003e: χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect size\u003c/em\u003e: (Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V)\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.414 (medium-to-strong effect)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight that institutional awareness is a critical facilitator of engagement with IRBs/RECs. Researchers who are unaware\u0026mdash;or uncertain\u0026mdash;are much less likely to follow submission procedures. This indicates that gaps in communication within an institution function as structural barriers, and add to other challenges such as limited training; bureaucratic delays; and insufficient support from mentors. Addressing these barriers in a comprehensive way is key for enacting ethical compliance at varying levels of academia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(A) Distribution of responses to the open-ended question \u0026ldquo;What do you understand by research ethics?\u0026rdquo; Responses were manually categorized into seven groups. The majority provided objective definitions (41.3%), such as emphasizing the protection of participants or the integrity of procedures. A considerable proportion gave unclear (23.8%) or incomplete responses (14.0%), while descriptive (13.7%), procedural (3.5%), subjective (2.6%), and analytical (1.2%) answers were less common. This distribution highlights that while many respondents have a clear grasp of research ethics, a substantial subset still struggles with a vague or partial understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e(B) Ethics Awareness Index is a combined record of different elements of ethics awareness. More than half of the participants demonstrated high awareness (56.1%), whereas 37.8% were classified as having low awareness, and only 6.0% showed moderate awareness. This suggests a polarization in the sample: most either have a strong understanding of ethics or a limited one, with few in-between.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eQualitative Insights into Research Ethics Definitions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to closed-ended survey items, participants were asked to provide open-ended definitions of research ethics. They analyzed the contents of their responses through a word frequency approach which was then portrayed as a word cloud (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). This qualitative analysis is representative of the key terms focused on by respondents, providing a more nuanced perspective of how researchers conceptualize what research ethics is in a personal sense beyond the established questionnaire items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The word cloud illustrates the frequency distribution of terms found in respondents' open-ended definitions of research ethics. The frequently mentioned terms included \u0026ldquo;research,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;ethics,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;participants,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;principle,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;guideline,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;respect,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;integrity,\u0026rdquo; highlighting the themes and topics prioritized by respondents. The size of the word corresponds to its frequency, meaning a larger term is observed more frequently in the dataset. Also, notable terms that emerged included \u0026ldquo;privacy,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;protection,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;confidentiality,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;harm,\u0026rdquo; which shows the respondents are aware of the rights of participants and protection of data. This visualization represents qualitative insight into researchers\u0026rsquo; conceptualizations of research ethics, mostly highlighting principles, respect, and protection of participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated researchers\u0026rsquo; awareness, submission patterns, barriers, and recommendations regarding ethical protocols in Saudi institutions. The findings indicate variations in awareness, irregular submission patterns across different career stages and disciplines, as well as systemic obstacles to compliance. The findings align with international literature and underscore distinct institutional challenges in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAwareness of Ethical Protocols\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings demonstrate that researchers with prior submission experience held markedly higher awareness of ethical research protocols (87.3% aware when previously submitted or participating vs 49.4% among those never submitted or participated), while the degree of uncertainty (\u0026lsquo;Not sure\u0026rsquo;) was twice as prevalent for those researchers who had no submission experience (8.3%) than those with submission experience (31.6%). The findings were statistically significant (χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414). The degree of awareness shown here resonates with that of findings in Jordan and South Africa where students\u0026rsquo; and junior researchers' knowledge and experience of IRB/similar processes and ethical guidelines was limited (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Abu-Zaid \u0026amp; Alkabba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In China, younger researchers also exhibited a lack of comprehension regarding confidentiality and data protection laws (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In the US, and other high-income contexts, inconsistent awareness of similar IRB processes has been documented as a consistent issue (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a coordinator\u0026rsquo;s perspective, this suggests that practical exposure to submission processes is itself an important form of training\u0026mdash;yet one that many students lack until late in their studies. Without structured ethics education, awareness develops unevenly, leaving many early-career researchers unprepared for compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSubmission Practices Across Career Stages and Disciplines\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe practices in submissions exhibited substantial variability between disciplines and career stages. Compared to postgraduate students and social science researchers, faculty and biomedical researchers were far more likely to have submitted a proposal. These differences are somewhat indicative of disciplinary research cultures, notably in the UK and United States where biomedical researchers tend to enforce ethics training more prescriptively than those in social branches (Head, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Stommel, Rijk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Training was also found to be important in this study: 78.2% of individuals who received training noted high confidence in applying ethics protocols compared to 48.5% of those who did not receive training. Similar improvements were also reported in Korea and Europe when protocols faced ethics training, greatly increasing compliance and diminishing rejection rates (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Klitzman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a coordinator, I see this discrepancy unfolding daily; students will arrive with little guidance from the supervisor and trainings sometimes fall into optional status rather than integral to the roles of oversight for research ethics. This then produces differences in confidence in various stages of the submissions in different fields, creating a learning culture of ethics as roadblock rather than a fundamental responsibility of research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBarriers to Engaging with Ethics Committees\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants perceived inadequate training, time delays driven by bureaucracy, and lack of oversight and supervision as significant obstacles. Our findings align with previous reports from Africa and the Middle East, indicating that ethics committees encounter challenges related to slow review processes and limited capacity (Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Hayward et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In multisite studies, response times, variations across sites, and fragmentation of the research ethics boards also present enormous challenges (Klitzman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBureaucracy is not just an abstract complaint, for coordinators it becomes a practical barrier to researchers submitting in a timely fashion. Additionally, if practicality is not tempered with supervision from a supervisor who does not offer guidance to students, this might exacerbate the coordination issue, putting a heavier workload on the coordinator. Therefore, it is no surprise to learn that in this study, postgraduate students reported higher levels of difficulty and lower levels of confidence for their submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eQualitative Insights into Research Ethics Definitions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The analysis of open-ended responses and the word cloud revealed a recurring theme characterized by terms such as \"ethics,\" \"participants,\" \"respect,\" and \"integrity,\" alongside references to \"privacy,\" \"protection,\" and \"confidentiality.\" The findings align with research from Canada and the UK, indicating that while researchers articulated their moral values in defining ethics, they lacked clarity on the implementation of ethical practices (Hayward et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Head, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This disjunction; understanding the need for principles but difficulties when applying them, is representative of what coordinators often see; researchers understand ethics is important in principle but do not realize the procedural rigor they are required to demonstrate in order to protect their participants in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRecommendations for Improvement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Both the participants consistently suggested the need for formal training in ethics, easier digital platforms, and an increase in engagement from supervisors. These suggestions are consistent with the conclusions from studies conducted in both China and Australia, which found the presence of a digitized submission system resulted in reduced administrative burden and improved transparency and accountability (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Supervisor training has similarly been emphasized by researchers in Europe and North America where supervisors, as mentors, are seen as ethical role models for their students (Cheung et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a coordinator's perspective, these recommendations are also similar to lived realities. Training and educational mentorship need to be more than just additional options; they need to be institutionalized. Similarly, the use of digital platforms would improve not only efficiency but would also allow researchers to feel compliance to be a part of good science rather than a bureaucratic hassle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study found that although Saudi institutions have institutional review boards, awareness of and submission practices related to research ethics continue to be inconsistent, especially amongst postgraduate students and early-career researchers. The results indicated that experience with submissions and formal training are significantly related to higher levels of awareness and confidence while barriers such as insufficient training, bureaucratic delays, and inadequate supervision continue to inhibit compliance. Qualitative responses also indicated that while researchers value principles such as integrity, respect toward participants, and protection of participant safety, many of them are unable to translate their perspective into practices when making submissions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe recommendations made by participants\u0026mdash;structured ethics training, improved digital submission processes, and engagement of supervisors\u0026mdash;demonstrated local relevance and international best practices. Addressing these issues will close the gap between policy and practice in ways that allow ethics review processes to be acknowledged as contributing to ethical practices, rather than bureaucratic obstacles to conducting research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a research coordinator, the findings speak to the need for a research culture where the normative ethical practice is upheld as a scientific value, rather than done to garner prestige or as an external motivation while being a relatively rare occurrence. Universities and research institutions should prioritize the implementation of systematic education on research ethics, provide mentorship to students, and promote a transparent submission system to review bodies that facilitates meaningful interaction with the ethical review process. Conducting ethical research will ensure the protection of research participants' well-being, enhance compliance, and maintain the overall quality and credibility of research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRecommendation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study's findings lead to several practical recommendations to enhance awareness of ethics and submission to ethics committees in Saudi institutions and other contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstitutionalize Research Ethics Training at All Career Stages\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics training should be mandatory for all undergraduate, postgraduate, and early-career researchers. Workshops that are scheduled regularly, combined with curriculum elements in ethics, would serve to elevate awareness of ethical principles, conditions for informed consent, and data protection, to a level where issues related to matters are not left to an individual's responsibility but systematically built into the development of researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDevelop Easier Digital Submission Platforms\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTimely, transparent online systems will reduce delays in processing, as well as engage researchers more effectively with ethics committees. As witnessed in studies in China and Australia, ethics management through a digitized system improves efficiencies, accountability, and consistency (Zhang, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIncrease Supervisor Training and Mentorship\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupervisors are an effective means of supporting their students in research proposal preparation and submission of ethical approval. Robust supervisor training programs would be a requirement to ensure that supervisors act as ethical models of the responsible practices of researchers (as recommended in Europe and North America) (Cheung, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePromote a Culture of Ethics as Scientific Integrity, Not Bureaucracy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics should be embraced as a safeguard for participants and a marker of scientific integrity rather than a procedural barrier or a pathway to recognition. Cultivating this mindset requires institutional commitment, leadership support, and the active involvement of research coordinators in bridging policy and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementing these measures allows universities and research institutions to address the identified gaps, reduce barriers to ethical compliance, and enhance the credibility and integrity of scientific research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRB \u0026ndash; Primary author. Conceptualized the study, designed the research instrument, performed the statistical report, and prepared the initial draft of the manuscript.NQ \u0026ndash; Provided overall validation, critical review, and supervision throughout the research process, ensuring methodological rigor and compliance with ethical standards.RH \u0026ndash; Conducted the statistical analysis, assisted in data interpretation, and contributed to the visualization of results and preparation of tables and figures.MDG \u0026ndash; Wrote and edited the final version of the paper, enhanced the discussion and conclusion sections, ensured alignment with journal submission standards, and handled the overall manuscript refinement and formatting.WB \u0026ndash; Assisted in data collection and verification, contributed to literature review synthesis, and participated in reviewing and revising the manuscript for intellectual content.SJ \u0026ndash; Contributed to the interpretation of findings, proofreading, and final quality assurance of the manuscript, ensuring coherence between the quantitative and qualitative results.All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdullah LAH. Common mistakes committed and challenges faced in research proposal writing by University of Aden postgraduate students. J Social Sci. 2023;29(1):18\u0026ndash;26. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20428/jss.v29i1.2070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20428/jss.v29i1.2070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbu-Zaid A, Alkabba AF. Perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards research ethics and institutional review boards: A cross-sectional study from Saudi Arabia. J Fam Commun Med. 2020;27(2):112\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_85_19\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_85_19\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlostath K. (2020). Graduate students\u0026rsquo; challenges in academic writing: A study of MA thesis proposals. Journal of Language and Education Research, 7(2), 45\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlotaibi R. Barriers in ethical proposal submission among Saudi postgraduate students: A cross-sectional analysis. Saudi J Educ. 2021;35(4):211\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlahmad G, Al Rashed A, Almutairi A, AlKhalaf M. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors in Jordan. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(1):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00750-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12910-022-00750-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBierer BE, Barnes M, Lynch HF. The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies. J Clin Translational Sci. 2019;3(2\u0026ndash;3):129\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.392\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/cts.2019.392\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown T. The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? Br Edu Res J. 2020;46(4):688\u0026ndash;703. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3609\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/berj.3609\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruton SV, Medlin C, Brown M, Sacco DF. Personal motivations and systemic incentives: Scientists on questionable research practices. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(3):1531\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00121-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11948-019-00121-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheung G, Friedman SH, Ng L, Cullum S. Supervising trainees in research: What does it take to be a scholarly project supervisor? Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(4):500\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-018-0886-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40596-018-0886-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavies S. The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: Review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee. Res Ethics. 2020;16(1\u0026ndash;2):1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898408\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1747016119898408\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDerrick GE. The role of research incentives in medical research organisations. R\u0026amp;D Manage. 2013;43(4):318\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/radm.12015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDove ES, \u0026Ouml;zdemir V. (2014). What role for law, human rights, and bioethics in an age of big data, consortia science, and consortia ethics? Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 170\u0026ndash;197. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5235/17579961.6.2.170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5235/17579961.6.2.170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaven TL, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G. Superb supervision: Training supervisors to convey responsible research practices to their PhD candidates. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023;29(1):1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00385-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11948-022-00385-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayward C, Morton Ninomiya ME, Beaton A. A new era of Indigenous research: Community-based Indigenous research ethics protocols in Canada. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):237\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211017505\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15562646211017505\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHead E. Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development. Eur Educational Res J. 2018;17(1):39\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117708126\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1474904117708126\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim SY, Kim JM, Kim SW. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors in Korea. Korean J Med Ethics. 2022;22(2):132\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35301/ksme.2022.22.2.132\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.35301/ksme.2022.22.2.132\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlitzman R. Local knowledge and single IRBs for multisite studies: Challenges and solutions. Ethics Hum Res. 2019;41(2):17\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/eahr.500010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu X, Li S, Zhang Y. Knowledge and attitudes toward research ethics among Chinese postgraduate students: A cross-sectional study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023;18(3):1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231123456\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15562646231123456\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCausland D, Haigh M, McCallion P, McCarron M. IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). HRB Open Res. 2024;7:3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075070220119986\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQadir MI. The role of research supervisors in implementing ethical practices in social science research. Int J Social Res. 2021;19(3):45\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eResnik DB. (2020). What Is Ethics in Research \u0026amp; Why Is It Important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStommel J, Rijk L. Ethical approval, none sought: How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Qualitative Inq. 2021;27(7):847\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420936234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1077800420936234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Li X, Chen H. Research ethics knowledge, attitudes, and practices among medical researchers in China: A cross-sectional survey. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(10):676\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106895\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/medethics-2020-106895\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-ethics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meth","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Ethics](http://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meth/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Ethics","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Research ethics, Institutional Review Board, awareness, submission practices, Saudi Arabia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are central to safeguarding ethical obligations in research, yet awareness and submission practices among researchers in Saudi Arabia remain inconsistent. This study explored researchers\u0026rsquo; awareness, submission methodologies, perceived barriers, and possible improvements to the IRB process. An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to 915 researchers across Saudi academic and research institutions, with 870 valid responses analyzed. The questionnaire covered demographics, awareness of ethical principles, submission practices, barriers, and recommendations. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests, with Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V used to indicate effect sizes. Results showed that prior submission experience was significantly associated with higher awareness of research ethics (87.3% vs. 49.4%, χ\u0026sup2;(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.40, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414). Institutional support also had a modest but significant effect on perceptions of submission ease (χ\u0026sup2;(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195.75, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.237). Formal ethics training demonstrated a moderate effect on confidence in applying protocols (78.2% vs. 48.5%, χ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.304). Barriers commonly reported included unclear procedures, bureaucratic delays, and limited supervisory guidance, while qualitative analysis highlighted recurring concerns regarding procedural complexity. Despite a well-established regulatory framework, practical gaps in awareness and submission practices persist. Researcher-driven recommendations such as structured training, simplified digital platforms, and stronger supervisory involvement could enhance compliance and reinforce integrity as a core scientific value in research practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Researcher Awareness and Submission Practices to Ethics Committees in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-22 03:34:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7902776/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-14T07:58:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-13T09:04:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-13T09:02:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Ethics","date":"2025-10-20T06:34:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-ethics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meth","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Ethics](http://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meth/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Ethics","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"231ad090-3481-439c-a52b-87e5c2fb0ccd","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-19T16:48:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7902776","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x","journal":{"identity":"bmc-medical-ethics","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Medical Ethics"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-17 16:30:03","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 17th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-22 03:34:27","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7902776","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7902776","identity":"rs-7902776","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}