Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Research Integrity Code of Conduct and Open Science Initiatives: Perspectives of Research Regulators in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda

Background For research to inform further science and optimize social impact, it needs to be methodically and ethically rigorous, and widely accessible. Despite growing clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa, there are sporadic research integrity codes of conduct and open sciences policies. The study explored perspectives of key stakeholders on potential facilitators and barriers to implementing research integrity and open science codes of conduct in three Sub—Saharan African Countries. Methods This was cross-sectional in-depth interviews study involving officials from national research regulatory bodies of Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. Participants were purposively selected. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and analysed in NVIVO-v.15 software, using an inductive thematic approach. Sample size was guided by thematic saturation. Results Twenty-three (23) regulators (12 females, 11 males) participated in the study from Kenya (10), Malawi (7) and Uganda (6). Interviews were conducted between July-September 2025. Some of the major barriers to open science are worries about loss of intellectual property rights, perceptions of inequitable benefit sharing of outcomes from shared material, inadequate infrastructure, and perceptions of foreign imposition of open science. On research integrity, barriers included inadequate resources to support the initiative and its activities, inadequate individual and institutional capacities, lack of clear institutional frameworks, and inadequate appreciation research integrity. Facilitators for both research integrity and open science were discussed as either already existing or those feasible to create. They include: training and mentorship, dissemination of codes and awareness campaigns; collaborations and stakeholder engagement; and institutional commitment. The findings reflect gaps in ethical, governance, and logistical capacities as key barriers, and a need to improve appreciation of the ethos of science. Conclusions In order to facilitate research integrity and open science in the studied countries, there is a need to mobilize adequate resources to support these initiatives, and cultivate a positive attitude towards both among research stakeholders. This requires local policies and codes of conduct to that effect. The success of these initiatives will be facilitated by favorable institutional environment exemplified by existence research ethics committees to review proposed researches for both scientific, ethical and regulatory integrity.