ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Researcher awareness and submission practices to ethics committees in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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. A national electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to 915 researchers affiliated with academic and research institutions across Saudi Arabia, yielding 870 complete and valid responses (response rate: 95.1%). 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). Perceived institutional support was associated with greater ease of submission (χ²(16) = 195.75, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.237), while formal ethics training was associated with higher confidence in applying ethical protocols (78.2% vs. 48.5%, χ²(1) = 80.32, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.304). Frequently reported barriers 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. Participants recommended structured ethics training, simplified digital submission platforms, and enhanced supervisory engagement to strengthen compliance and reinforce research integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.