<p>Research governance processes in Australian public organisations raise significant concerns for research integrity, particularly regarding the pre-dissemination review and editing of research outputs. While these processes are designed to ensure compliance with regulations and mitigate organisational risks, they often extend to controlling research outputs, including editing or suppressing findings. Notably, these governance processes apply to independently initiated and funded research. In this opinion article, we describe a personal case study illustrating an experience with these practices in action. To explore the extent of the issue, we also outline an informal content analysis of the research governance guidelines from various Australian public organisations, including ambulance, police, corrections, and education. Public health services were excluded as they do not require centralised review of outputs prior to dissemination in Australia. The guidelines revealed substantial variation in review requirements, with some organisations required no review, some allowing only factual corrections, and others retaining unrestricted authority to modify or block publications. We outline how a lack of restrictions on these processes can undermine research integrity and violate ethical principles as outlined in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. To address these issues, we propose five recommendations: 1) Clear boundaries for pre-dissemination edits; 2) Prevention of complete suppression of findings; 3) Defined review timelines; 4) Clear dispute resolution processes; and 5) The establishment of independent research integrity infrastructure. These measures are crucial to protect the validity of research findings and maintain public trust in research. </p>