Table-V.

Attitude of post-graduate residents toward research ethics committees.

Sr. #	Questions	Agree %, n	Disagree %, n	Neutral %, n	Strongly agree %, n	Strongly disagree %, n
1	Every university or research institution should have a research ethics committee to conduct ethical reviews of research involving both humans and laboratory animals.	35.7% (86)	0.0% (0)	3.3% (8)	61.0% (147)	0.0% (0)
2	Research involving humans should undergo review by a research ethics committee.	33.6% (81)	0.4% (1)	3.3% (6)	63.5% (153)	0.0% (0)
3	Human research should undergo review by a research ethics committee prior to review by a scientific committee.	38.2% (92)	0.4% (1)	9.1% (22)	52.3% (126)	0.0% (0)
4	Ethical review contributes to enhancing the credibility of research.	40.2% (97)	0.4% (1)	7.9% (19)	51.5% (124)	0.0% (0)
5	Ethical review is solely for international collaborative research and projects.	21.6% (52)	33.6% (81)	19.1% (46)	17.4% (42)	8.3% (20)
6	Because there are scientific committees, research ethics committees are not necessary to review research.	16.2% (39)	45.6% (110)	14.9% (36)	12.9% (31)	10.4%(25)
7	Research ethics committee reviews may indeed cause delays and add complexity for researchers.	31.55 (76)	25.7% (62)	25.3% (61)	12.9% (31)	4.6% (11)
8	Members of research ethics committees should receive training in research ethics.	41.5% (100)	0.0% (0)	2.9% (7)	55.6% (134)	0.0% (0)
9	The members of the research ethics committee should ideally include professors or individuals with significant authority within universities.	36.1% (87)	8.3% (20)	22.0% (53)	33.2% (80)	0.4% (1)
10	To instill confidence in research ethics committee decisions, it’s essential for these committees to be subject to oversight from higher authorities.	51.0% (123)	1.7% (4)	14.5% (35)	32.0% (77)	0.8% (2)