Main Article Content

Kennya Verónica Guzmán Huayamave
Ifrain González Beade
Luis Alberto Manzano Díaz
Background: Research ethics is a cornerstone for ensuring the credibility of scientific knowledge and strengthening public trust in higher education institutions. Objective: To analyze the perceptions of faculty members at a private university in Guayaquil, Ecuador, regarding ethics in research management, and the subsequent definition of guiding criteria for strengthening their professional profile. Methodology: The research was conducted using a quantitative approach, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional, and descriptive design. Data were collected using a Likert-type questionnaire administered to 50 full-time faculty members from two departments. The instrument demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = 0.849) as calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Results: 48% of the faculty members stated that they always maintain their moral principles under research pressure, and 52% adhere to truthfulness in the exchange of information. However, only 12% consistently produce scientific work, and 12% regularly participate in academic events. The significant correlation between ethical attitude and research process (rho = 0.687, p < 0.001) confirms that both dimensions mutually reinforce each other in the profile of the surveyed teacher. Conclusions: Research ethics should be conceived as an integral dimension that articulates personal values, professional responsibility, and commitment to responsible scientific development.
Contexto: La ética de la investigación constituye un pilar para garantizar la credibilidad del conocimiento científico y fortalecer la confianza social en las instituciones de educación superior. Objetivo: Analizar la percepción de los docentes de una universidad privada de Guayaquil, Ecuador, sobre la ética en la gestión investigativa, y la consecuente definición de criterios orientadores para el fortalecimiento de su perfil. Metodología: La investigación se desarrolló bajo un enfoque cuantitativo, con diseño no experimental, de corte transversal y alcance descriptivo. La información se recolectó mediante un cuestionario tipo Likert aplicado a 50 docentes a tiempo completo de dos facultades. El instrumento presentó una consistencia interna adecuada (α = 0.849) calculada mediante alfa de Cronbach. Resultados: El 48% de los docentes afirma mantener siempre sus principios morales bajo presión investigativa y el 52% se apega a la veracidad en el intercambio de información. No obstante, solo el 12% realiza producción científica de forma permanente y el 12% participa con regularidad en eventos académicos. La correlación significativa entre actitud ética y proceso investigativo (rho = 0.687, p < 0.001) confirma que ambas dimensiones se fortalecen de forma recíproca en el perfil del docente encuestado. Conclusiones: La ética investigativa debe concebirse como una dimensión integral que articula valores personales, responsabilidad profesional y compromiso con el desarrollo científico responsable.

Article Details

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

Guzmán Huayamave, K. V., González Beade, I., & Manzano Díaz, L. A. (2026). The Ethical Stance of the University Teacher-Researcher. Horizontes, 10(44), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.33996/revistahorizontes.v10i44.1327
References

Abdelkreem, E., Ibrahim, M. E., Elateek, S., Abdelgawad, F. y Silverman, H. J. (2024). Perceptions of the research integrity climate in Egyptian universities: A survey among academic researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 19(4-5), 250-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241273097

Almutairi, Y. M. N. (2022). Effects of academic integrity of faculty members on students’ ethical behavior. Education Research International, 2022(1), 6806752. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6806752

Ayikobua, E. T., Munabi, I. G., Nabukenya, S., Opito, R. y Mwaka, E. S. (2025). Prevalence and factors associated with research misconduct among faculty in selected public universities in Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. Discover Education, 4(1), 548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00945-1

Bain, L. E., Tchuisseu-Kwangoua, L. A., Adeagbo, O., Nkfusai, N. C., Amu, H., Saah, F. I. y Kombe, F. (2022). Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. The Pan African Medical Journal, 43, 182. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2022.43.182.37804

Bennett, L. y Abusalem, A. (2024). Building Academic Integrity and Capacity in Digital Assessment in Higher Education. Athens Journal of Education, 11(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.11-1-5

Bogdadi, R. S., Qushmaq, D. N. A., Al Hasheem, E., De Guzman, D. M. M., Baeshen, W. A. y Aljeaid, S. M. (2026). Researcher awareness and submission practices to ethics committees in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Ethics, 27(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01382-x

Brickhill, M., Andrews, G. y Nieuwoudt, J. (2025). Developing student agency towards academic integrity through an educative approach: Exploring students’ experiences and perspectives. Journal of academic ethics, 23(3), 951-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09567-y

Candal, C., Ross, J. S., Marušić, A. y Ruano-Ravina, A. J. (2024). Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals. Epidemiol Community Health, 78(1), 61-64. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2023-220554

de Miranda, L. F. y Cabello, A. F. (2023). Research collaboration networks in maturing academic environments. Scientometrics, 128(4), 2535-2556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04671-z

Du, X., Zhang, Y., Lai, S. y Tao, H. (2024). How Do Auditors Value Hypocrisy? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 191(3), 501-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05465-2

Gan, Y., Shi, Y. y Wang, G. (2025). Publication pressure and questionable research practices: a moderated mediation model. Ethics and Behavior, 35(6), 415-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2024.2397103

Gbadago, F. Y., Masud, I., Iddris, F., Koomson, S., Poku, P. K. y Zoiku, S. (2025). Ethical dilemmas in teaching and assessment in higher education: a literature synthesis towards an integrative model for policy, practice and academic integrity. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-02-2025-0107

Gopalakrishna, G., Ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M. y Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PloS one, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023

Gutiérrez, G., Yaguarema, M., Ayala, M., Zambrano R, J. y Gutiérrez, L. (2023). Impact of government evaluation and accreditation processes on the research output of universities in developing countries: an X-ray of the young Ecuadorian academia. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1093083. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1093083

Hailu, H. B., Wolde, T. T., Wubete, B. Y., Ali, J. y Bitew, S. T. (2025). Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey. FResearch, 14, 111. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2

Haven, T., Gopalakrishna, G., Tijdink, J., van der Schot, D. y Bouter, L. (2022). Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC research notes, 15(1), 302. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y

Horbach, S. P., Fishberg, R., Ulpts, S. y Degn, L. (2024). Thou Shalt Not!–How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1), 2414500. http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/publications/thou-shalt-not-how-the-institutional-afterlife-of-research-miscon/

Kristjánsson, K. (2024). Aristotelian practical wisdom (phronesis) as the key to professional ethics in teaching. Topoi, 43(3), 1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09974-7

Laasch, O., Moosmayer, D. C. y Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2023). The interdisciplinary responsible management competence framework: An integrative review of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability competences. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(4), 733-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05261-4

Li, D. (2025). Ethical governance in Chinese universities: an overview of research ethics committees. Ethics and Behavior, 35(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2024.2301764

Lindkvist, A. M., Koppel, L., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D. y Tinghög, G. (2026). Is research ethics discipline-specific? A survey of researchers' and ethics reviewers' views on research misconduct and questionable practices. Research Policy, 55(4), 105435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2026.105435

Muñoz, A., Guerra, H. E., Begazo-del-Carpio, L., Ramos, L. F., Dávila, G., Peña, Y. M., Díaz del Olmo, P., Mendoza, E., y Valenti, E. (2026). Knowledge and practices about research integrity among Peruvian university students. BMC Medical Ethics, 27(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01344-9

Nguyen, L. T. y Tuamsuk, K. (2024). Unveiling scientific integrity in scholarly publications: A bibliometric approach. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00164-5

Nguyen, L. T. y Tuamsuk, K. (2025). Factors influencing researchers’ scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: A path analysis approach. Research Ethics, 21(3), 384-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241257445

Patalinghug, M. E., Tagaylo, P. R., Taoto-an, J. B. y Patalinghug, H. F. (2026). Ethical Climate and Research Integrity in Higher Education: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 25(5), 108-134. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.5.6

Roje, R., Reyes, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I. y Marušić, A. (2023). Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review. Accountability in Research, 30(8), 633-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2073819

Shamatov, D., Ispambetova, B., Baikenov, K. y Kuzhabekova, A. (2026). Research integrity under publication requirements: a qualitative study of doctoral education in Kazakhstan. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 22(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-026-00219-9

Solari, M. y Martín, E. (2022). Teachers’ professional identity construction: A sociocultural approach to its definition and research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(2), 626-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1852987

Tammeleht, A., Koort, K., Rodríguez, M. J. y Löfström, E. (2022). Knowledge building process during collaborative research ethics training for researchers: Experiences from one university. International Journal of Ethics Education, 7(1), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-021-00138-y

Tammeleht, A. y Löfström, E. (2026). How do you know if research ethics and integrity training is effective?–Overview of prior literature. Ethics and Behavior, 36(2), 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2025.2493055

Trott, K. y Lee, L. M. (2026). Developing, implementing, and transferring a faculty-led RCR training program. Accountability in Research, 33(3), 2517070. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2517070

Vu Lan Oanh, L., Tettamanzi, P., Tien Minh, D., Comoli, M., Mouloudj, K., Murgolo, M. y Dang Thu Hien, M. (2024). How ethical behavior is considered in different contexts: A bibliometric analysis of global research trends. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090200

Zhu, W. (2025). The importance of promoting a culture of academic integrity in higher education institutions in China. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 38(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-025-00367-w