A Comparative Review of Private Georgian and European Universities in the Context of Research Integrity, Ethics, and Research Quality

Synopsis:

This study compares research ethics, quality, and integrity practices in leading European institutions and selected Georgian private universities, with selection criteria based on international ranking systems. It examines how Georgian private HEIs develop and implement policies and Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to support responsible research. Focusing on two universities involved in the ETHICS project alongside broader local practices, the study contrasts these with established European models. It identifies gaps and opportunities to strengthen research governance, oversight, and academic culture in Georgia, highlighting the importance of REBs, robust integrity policies, and ethics education in aligning with international standards.

Key questions:

· How do Georgian private universities define, implement, and monitor research integrity and ethics policies compared to European HEIs?

· How do the structure and effectiveness of Research Ethics Boards (REBs), along with related procedures and oversight mechanisms, differ between Georgian and European universities?

· What best practices from European universities can be adopted to strengthen research ethics, integrity, and quality in Georgian private HEIs?

Methods

This study employs a comparative analytical design, combining qualitative and limited quantitative approaches to examine institutional policies, governance, and practices related to research integrity, ethics, and quality. The analysis is based on document review of selected Georgian private and European universities, including ethics policies, REB procedures, data management and plagiarism regulations, and training programs. A purposive sampling strategy was applied. Georgian universities were selected based on institutional characteristics (size, years of operation, and research productivity, including Scopus-indexed publications), as well as the existence and quality of ethics policies, REBs, and training activities. Two institutions were selected from participants of the EU-funded ETHICS project to ensure access to relevant institutional practices. European universities were included as benchmark cases, selected based on research reputation (e.g., QS and THE rankings), affiliation with organizations such as the European University Association, and the presence of comprehensive and transparent research ethics systems, including well-functioning REBs and established ethics training cultures. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key patterns, differences, and best practices across institutions.

Some sections of this project, originally written in Georgian, were edited and translated into English using the free version of OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4. This tool was used solely for language editing and translation, while all conceptual content, research design, and analysis were developed by the authors.

Findings

Many private universities in Georgia have research ethics policies, but implementation and compliance are limited compared to European institutions, where policies are comprehensive, regularly updated, and cover areas like authorship, plagiarism, data management, conflicts of interest, and responsible publication. In Georgia, ethics education in curricula is inconsistent and often linked to external projects, raising concerns about long-term sustainability.

Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms also differ significantly. Some Georgian institutions lack well-developed systems for overseeing ethical standards and handling misconduct. By contrast, European universities commonly employ formalized protocols, including anonymous reporting systems, which contribute to more effective detection and resolution of ethical violations. The findings further highlight that a strong culture of research integrity is closely linked to broader institutional culture. Georgian universities face challenges such as limited resources and uneven faculty engagement, which contribute to inconsistencies in the application of ethical procedures.

Finally, Georgian universities demonstrate clear commitment to international standards and actively seek to adopt European practices -illustrated by initiatives such as the ETHICS project - there remain gaps in the clarity of procedures, the comprehensiveness of policy frameworks, and the systematic integration of ethical standards throughout all stages of research. European models continue to serve as important benchmarks for enhancing transparency, strengthening ethical standards, and improving governance structures.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

The study revealed some challenges and gaps in implementing ethical standards and better procedures of REBs in private Georgian universities. For better implementation of REB procedures and ensuring ethical standards at all stages of research, analysis revealed recommendations which are presented here: 1. It is crucial to formalize and standardize REB procedures, and all criteria of decision-making should be documented to provide transparency. 2. Modern research challenges cause necessity of reconsidering the ethical policies to answer the challenges related to data management, open science concepts and managing conflict of interest. 3. To institutionalize research ethics and integrity culture, it is important to integrate research ethics mandatory courses and training within the all-academic programs. 4. Monitoring, reporting and sanctions robust mechanisms are essential in preventing or addressing ethical misconduct. 5. Adopting European best practices and implementing international policy documents will support to enhance Ethical standards at Georgian institutions. By implementing these comprehensive recommendations, private Georgian institutions can create sustainable environment for research ethics and integrity.

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. It focuses on selected Georgian private universities, which may not represent all institutions, and compares them with European universities known for best practices, potentially overlooking broader variations. The analysis relies on documents and policy evaluations, which may not capture informal practices or individual perceptions. Differences in data availability may affect completeness, and as a cross-sectional study, it reflects only current practices.

Keywords:
Research Integrity, Research Ethics, University Governance, Higher Education, Research Ethics Boards

References

All European Academies. (2023). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised Edition 2023). Berlin, Germany: ALLEA. https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/European-Code-of-Conduct-Revised-Edition-2023.pdf

Armond, A. C. V., Cobey, K. D., & Moher, D. (2024). Research integrity definitions and challenges. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 150, 111367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

González-Esteban, E., Feenstra, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (Eds.). (2023). Ethics and responsible research and innovation in practice: State-of-the-art survey (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13875). Springer.

Desmond, H., & Dierickx, K. (2021). Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: Understanding the divergences. Bioethics, 35(5), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12851

European Commission. (2021). Guideline for Promoting Research Integrity in Research Performing Organisations. Brussels, Belgium: European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/guideline-for-promoting-research-integrity-in-research-performing-organisations_horizon_en.pdf

Hastings, R., Labib, K., Lechner, I., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., & Evans, N. (on behalf of the EnTIRE Consortium). (2023). Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review. Science and Public Policy, 50(2), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac067

McIntosh, T., Antes, A. L., Schenk, E., Rolf, L., & DuBois, J. M. (2024). Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials. Accountability in Research, 31(8), 991–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2187292