Factors associated with scientific production of professors working at a private university in Peru: An analytical cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the association between the academic, personal, and work characteristics and scientific production of professors at a private university of Lima, Peru, in 2021. Methods: We undertook an observational, analytical, and cross-sectional study. The sample included 322 professors through simple random sampling. Two questionnaires were administered. The first gathered personal, academic, and work characteristics; while the second evaluated scientific production. The chi-squared test was used, with a significance level of p<0,05, to evaluate the association between the different characteristics and scientific production. A multiple logistic regression was analyzed through the Stepwise method to evaluate the relationship between the variables of exposure and scientific production. We calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: We analyzed 322 professors, 59,6% were male. Scientific production was associated with being registered in Renacyt (PR = 5,52; 95% CI: 2,14 to 4,23; p = <0.001), having a doctoral degree (PR = 2,45; 95% CI: 1,60 to 3,85; p = <0.001), having been a thesis advisor (PR = 3,83; 95% CI: 1,45 to 5,66; p = <0.001), having facilities to conduct research at the workplace (PR = 1,58; 95% CI: 1,12 to 2,47; p = 0.006), and having received training by the university (PR = 1,99; 95% CI: 1,55 to 2,56; p = 0,001). Conclusions: Scientific production was associated with being registered in Renacyt, having a doctoral degree, having been a thesis advisor, having facilities to conduct research at the workplace, and having being trained in research by the university. Hence, evaluation systems and the monitoring of university quality standards should be strengthened. In addition, it is necessary to undertake wider scope studies in order to enhance the strategies that promote professors’ research.

Gender gaps in research: a systematic review

“…The Proknow-C methodology ( Ensslin et al ., 2010 ) is employed, consisting of three stages: Development of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP), bibliometric analysis and systemic analysis. The research proposes to classify the information into 4 factors: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile ( Rivera-Lozada et al , 2022 ).…”