# Researcher awareness and submission practices to ethics committees in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

## TL;DR

This study examines how Saudi Arabian researchers understand and interact with ethics committees, finding that experience and training improve awareness and submission practices.

## Contribution

The study identifies key factors influencing researchers' engagement with ethics committees in Saudi Arabia and proposes actionable improvements.

## Key findings

- Researchers with prior submission experience show significantly higher awareness of research ethics.
- Formal ethics training is linked to greater confidence in applying ethical protocols.
- Barriers like unclear procedures and bureaucratic delays hinder effective submission practices.

## 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.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x.