BACKGROUND Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research. Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community. Therefore, it must be ensured that researchers are well-versed in the GCP. But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India. AIM To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants. METHODS This is a cross-sectional study. A self-structured questionnaire about GCP, after expert validations, was circulated among researchers, at a tertiary healthcare institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh. A total of 59 individuals, who were selected by universal sampling, participated in the study. All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects, except residents and faculty, and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS, Rishikesh. We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Out of 59 participants, only 11 (18.6%) were certified for GCP. Most of the participants (64.4%) had Average knowledge, 33.9% had Good knowledge and 1.7% had Poor knowledge. Only 49% of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP. There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board (P=0.010), confidentiality & privacy (P=0.011), and participant safety & adverse events (P<0.001). There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct (P=0.024) and participant safety & adverse events (P=0.011) based on certification of GCP. There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment & retention on the basis of current academic position (P<0.001) and certification of GCP (P=0.023). We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants (P=0.013). CONCLUSION Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP. This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethics committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh gave ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.