Next Article in Journal
Editorial for the Special Issue “New Online Technical Applications for Non-Face-to-Face Learning”
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Guarda, M. (2025). Fostering Educational Change at the Intersection of Macro-Level Institutional Narratives and Micro-Level Classroom Experiences. Education Sciences, 15(4), 472
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci15111468
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Motivation for Scientific Publication at the University Level: Analyses in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia

by
Luzmila Lourdes Garro-Aburto
1,
Edith Gissela Rivera-Arellano
1,
Jorge Miguel Chávez-Díaz
2,* and
Sandra Patrícia Ochoa-Guevara
3
1
Postgraduate School, Universidad César Vallejo, Lima 15487, Peru
2
Postgraduate School, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima 15076, Peru
3
Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad Santander UDES, Bucaramanga 680002, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(11), 1468; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111468 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 August 2025 / Revised: 17 September 2025 / Accepted: 22 September 2025 / Published: 3 November 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Motivation to publish is a key competence in university research training, although it is still little explored from a comparative approach in Latin America. This study analyzed the motivation to publish in university students from Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, considering three dimensions: commitment, behavior, and intention. The Motivation to Publish Scientific Articles Scale (EMP-AC) was applied to 268 participants, complemented with a sociodemographic form. The data were processed in the software jamovi v.2.6.44, and the results show that intention is the dominant dimension in the three countries, followed by behavior and commitment. In addition, contextual differences were identified: in Ecuador, intention predominated, while in Colombia, concreteness in publications stood out. These findings provide comparative evidence and guide universities to design programs that integrate technical training with motivational strategies that strengthen the research identity.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary university scenario, scientific publication constitutes the fundamental means for the dissemination of knowledge and a key indicator of academic productivity, reflecting the commitment to the development of science (Trust, 2019; Trueblood et al., 2025). Publishing an article represents the culmination of a research process, strengthens research skills, increases academic visibility, and favors professional projection (de Araújo & Miguel, 2017; Nikita, 2022).
However, the transition from initial intention to sustained commitment and affective behavior towards publication is mediated by motivational, formative, and institutional factors (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Espinoza Freire, 2020; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Motivation integrates intrinsic components, such as the desire to contribute to the scientific community, and extrinsic components, such as economic incentives, professional recognition, or regulatory requirements (Atapour et al., 2025; Lambovska & Yordanov, 2020; Niez, 2024). Despite these opportunities, significant barriers remain: insufficient training in academic writing, limited experience interacting with reviewers, difficulties in collaboration, and pressure to meet productivity indicators (Goyanes & Rodríguez-Gómez, 2018; Pulido, 2021; Romić & Mitrović, 2021; Yamanel et al., 2021). In addition, institutional demands aimed at meeting productivity indicators can generate tensions that impact the quality and ethics of academic work, opening the door to risks such as the growth of predatory publishing (Sotomayor-Beltran & Zarate Segura, 2022).
In Latin America, these difficulties are intensified by inequalities in infrastructure, access to research networks, and availability of funding. These gaps limit student participation in indexed journals and restrict the possibility of diversifying the types of articles, concentrating production in traditional formats, and of a lesser scope. Such a situation reflects structural shortcomings and the lack of institutional support mechanisms that favor the integration of young researchers in academic circles of greater visibility (Beigel, 2021; Castro-Rodríguez, 2019; Chavarría et al., 2025; Esteban et al., 2022; Mamani-Benito et al., 2023; Tanco et al., 2018).
In Peru, the motivation to publish is linked to the strengthening of research competencies; however, student participation in indexed journals continues to be limited (Valdez et al., 2024). Peruvian scientific production takes place in a tense scenario between global demands for visibility and local conditions of development. Beigel (2021) warns that prestigious circuits coexist that are not guided solely by international metrics, while Valdez et al. (2024) identify structural barriers together with a growing interest in publishing, which reveals a potential that is still untapped.
In Ecuador, the obligatory nature of degree projects with projection towards publication has increased the interest of students, although challenges related to the quality of academic products persist (Carranza-Esteban et al., 2022). Scientific production has grown, driven by government policies and international collaboration (Castillo & Powell, 2019), but this increase in quantity does not always translate into improvements in quality and impact (Moreira-Mieles et al., 2020). Investment in scientific infrastructure and the consolidation of international strategic alliances are key factors in projecting the country’s academic contribution (del Rio & Arias-Barrionuevo, 2025).
In Colombia, the Publindex system establishes differentiated incentives for teachers and students, with heterogeneous impacts on academic production (Castro-Rodríguez, 2019). The country has shown sustained growth, with a prominent role of public universities and internationalization of research. However, closing investment gaps, reducing regional disparities, and consolidating coherent and stable policies are still necessary conditions to sustain this progress (Pinedo-López et al., 2025).
Investment in research and development (R&D) remains a determining factor in raising regional scientific production (Alcántara, 2019; Pinedo-López et al., 2025; Villamarin Barragan et al., 2023). In Latin America, investment levels remain below international standards (UNESCO, 2021; World Bank, 2024), creating a complex but fertile scenario for comparative analysis.
In this framework, the study aims to model, by dimensions, intention, commitment, behavior, and by country (Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia), the motivation to publish scientific articles in university students, identifying the items with the highest relative weight and comparing the contribution of each dimension to the overall motivation. The results seek to provide useful evidence for the design of institutional strategies to strengthen the culture of academic publication and enhance student participation in scientific production.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Motivation and Scientific Publication

Academic motivation has been widely studied from psychological models. Self-Determination Theory argues that intrinsic (self-interest, satisfaction) and extrinsic (incentives, prestige) motivations interact in academic behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2020). For its part, Expectancy-Value Theory highlights that self-efficacy beliefs and task valuation determine effort and persistence (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). The self-efficacy proposed by Bandura (1997) and its subsequent developments (Nuri & Ismailli, 2025; Pintrich, 2003) have shown that imagining oneself as an author and visualizing concrete goals increase the probability of publishing.
In academia, the motivation to publish arises both from individual goals and from institutional and cultural factors. Among the main barriers are the lack of training opportunities, unfamiliarity with publishing processes, and the pressure to “publish or perish”, an expression that since the 1970s describes the demand to publish as a condition for sustaining an academic career (Harzing, 2010; Warsy & Warsy, 2019). This pressure, present worldwide, is associated with career progression, tenure, and access to research funding (Ivanović et al., 2025; van Dalen, 2021).
Motivation to publish can be understood as the set of internal and external processes that drive students, teachers, and researchers to transform their findings into academic products. It includes intrinsic factors, such as curiosity and self-image as an author, as well as extrinsic factors linked to incentives, institutional policies, and recognition circuits (Carr et al., 2020; Lee & Boud, 2003; Mamani-Benito et al., 2023).

2.2. Dimensions of Motivation: Intention, Commitment, and Behavior

-
Intention: linked to the initial disposition and the construction of academic identity as an author, influenced by self-efficacy and personal goals (Lu, 2025; Subedi et al., 2022).
-
Engagement: reflected in participation in training activities and research spaces, which strengthen skills and foster integration into the scientific community (Price et al., 2017; Pulido, 2021).
-
Behavior: materializes in concrete actions such as participating in projects, culminating in publications, and working in research teams (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Trueblood et al., 2025).
Several studies agree that intention is the initial driver of publication, commitment acts as a formative mediator, and behavior represents the crystallization of motivation into tangible results (Atapour et al., 2025; Pintrich, 2003).

2.3. Barriers and Facilitators

The process of scientific publication faces obstacles such as a lack of training in academic writing, poor institutional support, and anxiety about writing (Flowerdew, 2013; Nurkamto et al., 2024; Sherekhova, 2022). Added to this are technological limitations, limited refereeing experience, and pressure to meet metrics (Harzing, 2010; Yamanel et al., 2021).
Facilitators include participation in writing groups and academic networks that strengthen research collaboration and agency (Carr et al., 2020; Lee & Boud, 2003). Likewise, early research experiences accompanied by mentoring generate enthusiasm and consolidate sustained trajectories (Hunter et al., 2007; Magee & Simpson, 2019; Waaijer et al., 2019).

2.4. Latin American Context: Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia

National policies have sought to strengthen publication as part of academic training. In Peru, the approval of the National Code of Scientific Integrity (Concytec, 2019) marked a regulatory milestone, although low scientific production persists. In Ecuador, mandatory publication as a degree requirement has promoted motivation, although with challenges of sustainability (Esteban et al., 2022). In Colombia, Publindex was consolidated as a classification and incentive mechanism, despite having differentiated impacts according to profiles (González-Sanabria et al., 2019).
At the regional level, open access through SciELO has increased visibility (Bojo-Canales & Melero, 2023), although inequalities in quality and impact persist (Ili, 2025). These dynamics should be analyzed together with the low investment in R&D reported in international statistics (UNESCO, 2021; World Bank, 2024).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Design and Approach

A non-experimental, correlational, cross-sectional design was adopted, following the methodological guidelines of Creswell and Creswell (2018). The quantitative approach allowed modeling the relationship between the dimensions of motivation for scientific publication, intention, commitment, behavior, and global motivation. The correlational nature was oriented to estimate the magnitude and direction of these associations in the total sample and in each country.

3.2. Participants

The population consisted of students enrolled in undergraduate, graduate, master’s, and doctoral programs at universities in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia during the year 2024. A non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used, considering as inclusion criteria: (a) being enrolled in a higher education academic program, (b) having completed at least one semester, and (c) agreeing to participate voluntarily.
The final sample consisted of 268 students: 167 from Peru (62.3%), 56 from Ecuador (20.9%), and 45 from Colombia (16.8%). A total of 58.2% were women (n = 156) and 41.8% men (n = 112). In terms of age, the 41 to 50 years age group predominated (32.8%), followed by 21 to 30 (22.4%), 31 to 40 (19.8%), 51 years or older (18.7%), and under 20 (6.3%). By academic level, 37.3% had a master’s degree, 28.4% a bachelor’s degree, 27.6% a doctorate, and 6.7% a specialization.

3.3. Instruments

3.3.1. Motivation to Publish Scientific Articles Scale (EMP-AC)

Developed and validated by Mamani-Benito et al. (2023), the EMP-AC is a questionnaire designed to assess motivation to publish in undergraduate and graduate students. It consists of 13 items distributed in three dimensions: commitment (items 1–3), behavior (items 4–8), and intention (items 9–13). Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), which makes it possible to capture both the degree of agreement and the intensity of perceived motivation.
In its original validation, the instrument was subjected to a process of expert judgment, reaching levels of agreement above 80% in the relevance and clarity of the items. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure with adequate fit indices (CFI > 0.90; RMSEA < 0.08), which supports its construct validity. In the present study, the internal consistency of the EMP-AC was assessed by means of two complementary coefficients: Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. The former constitutes the classic index in social sciences to estimate reliability, although it presupposes tau-equivalence; the latter provides a more robust estimate by considering individual factor loadings (Dunn et al., 2014; Moral de la Rubia, 2019). Both indices showed adequate values (α = 0.814 and ω = 0.819), higher than the recommended threshold of 0.80, confirming the psychometric robustness of the instrument in this cross-national sample.

3.3.2. Sociodemographic Data

Designed for this study, it collected information on country of origin, sex, age, academic level, and previous research or publication experience. Its objective was to contextualize the results of the EMP-AC and to enable comparative analyses between subgroups of the sample.

3.3.3. Procedure

The application of the instruments was carried out in a virtual format using Google Forms, distributed through institutional channels and social networks of academic programs. Before participating, students received an informed consent form explaining the objectives of the study, the confidentiality of the information, and the voluntary nature of participation. No incentives were offered. The data obtained were cleaned in Microsoft Excel and subsequently analyzed with jamovi statistical software v. 2.6.44 (The Jamovi Project, 2022).

3.4. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis was carried out in two phases. In the first, a preliminary exploration was carried out by calculating basic descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and verifying the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity in order to determine the relevance of applying parametric or nonparametric tests.
In the second phase, corresponding to inferential modeling, correlational analyses were performed to estimate the strength and direction of the relationships between the dimensions of motivation and global motivation. Likewise, multiple linear regression models with standardized betas were constructed and organized in three sections: (a) modeled by dimension, (b) comparison between countries, and (c) integrated model of global motivation. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
The correlations and multiple linear regression were chosen because our research questions focus on estimating the magnitude and direction of effects of a small set of predictors on (a) each motivation dimension and (b) global motivation. Conducting simultaneous multivariate modeling (e.g., MANOVA/SEM) would require larger and more balanced per-country sample sizes to ensure stable estimates; in our stratified data (Peru n = 167; Ecuador n = 56; Colombia n = 45), such models would be underpowered and potentially unstable. In addition, given that the EMP-AC has documented construct validity and reliability, we treated its dimension scores as observed variables. Consistent with good practice, we verified distributional assumptions (normality and homoscedasticity) and examined model diagnostics. This strategy provides interpretable answers aligned with our aims, while we explicitly acknowledge—see Discussion—that it does not model the covariance among the outcome dimensions.

4. Results

The inferential analysis was organized in three sections: (a) multiple regression models by dimension of the motivation to publish, (b) comparison between countries, and (c) integrated model for global motivation.

4.1. Commitment Dimension

Table 1 presents the results of the multiple regression model for the commitment dimension, considering participation in courses or lectures (Q1) and access to databases (Q2) as predictors.
In the three countries, participation in courses or lectures was identified as the most consistent predictor of commitment, with greater weight in Peru (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), followed by Ecuador (β = 0.28, p = 0.058, marginal significance) and Colombia (β = 0.30, p = 0.077, marginal significance). Access to databases (Q2) showed no significant association in any of the contexts. These results suggest that extracurricular training and academic training experiences influence commitment more than the availability of information resources.

4.2. Behavioral Dimension

Table 2 shows the multiple regression models for the behavioral dimension, with four predictors: culminates in publication (Q5), use of managers (Q6), participation in projects (Q7), and group work (Q8).
In Peru, three predictors were significant: “culminates in publication” (β = 0.37, p < 0.001) and project (β = 0.28, p < 0.001), explaining 24% of the variance. In Colombia, the most influential predictor was “culminates in publication” (β = 0.51, p < 0.001), with an explained variance of 34%. In general, the results show that the intention to publish is based on the personal projection of completing the publication in the behavioral dimension. It should be noted that the statistical results show no significant association of the behavioral dimension in the country of Ecuador.

4.3. Intention Dimension

Table 3 presents the regression models for the intention dimension, with the predictors imagining oneself as an author (Q10), identifying a publishable topic (Q11), having in mind to publish (Q12), and not giving up (Q13).
In Peru, three predictors were significant: “imagining oneself an author” (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), having in mind to publish (β = 0.25, p = 0.003), and not giving up in the face of difficulties (β = 0.17, p = 0.024), explaining 37% of the variance. In Ecuador, intention was mainly determined by having in mind to publish (β = 0.40, p = 0.002), while “imagining oneself an author” showed a marginal tendency (β = 0.22, p = 0.063). In Colombia, the most influential predictor was having in mind to publish (β = 0.36, p = 0.039), with an explained variance of 48%. Overall, the findings show that the intention to publish is based on the personal projection of becoming an author and on the clarity of a plan to publish, rather than on the mere identification of a topic or the declared persistence in the face of obstacles.

4.4. Integrated Model of Global Motivation

Table 4 summarizes the integrated model by country, where global motivation was explained by the three dimensions: commitment, behavior, and intention. In all three country contexts, the dominant dimension was intention, followed by behavior and, in third place, commitment.
Intention exhibits the highest relative weight in the three countries (Ecuador: β* = 0.578; Peru: β* = 0.505; Colombia: β* = 0.496), suggesting that projecting oneself as an author and maintaining a clear publication plan are associated with higher levels of overall motivation. Behavior ranks second (β* between 0.385 and 0.437), followed by commitment (β* between 0.270 and 0.321). Overall, the pattern points to components with greater proximity to the action of publishing (intentional and behavioral), explaining global motivation better than the formative engagement components.

5. Discussion

The purpose of the study was to model the motivation to publish scientific articles in university students from Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, analyzing the dimensions of commitment, behavior, and intention, as well as their joint contribution to overall motivation. The findings are discussed below in terms of the objectives.
Commitment showed a lower weight in overall motivation, although participation in courses and lectures had a positive effect in all three countries, with greater strength in Peru. This coincides with studies that point out that extracurricular training spaces strengthen interest and motivation towards research (Price et al., 2017; Pulido, 2021). However, having databases was not associated with engagement, suggesting that resources alone do not promote motivation if they are not accompanied by pedagogical strategies that guide their use (Ryan & Deci, 2020). This finding warns that formative engagement, while necessary, is not sufficient to transform motivation into publishing behaviors.
The second dimension in relevance was behavior, with notable differences between countries. In Peru and Colombia, the predictor completion leading to publication had a significant and high weight, especially in Colombia, where it reached the highest effect of the study (β = 0.51, p < 0.001). This finding is related to the existence of incentives such as Publindex, which reinforce student motivation by rewarding academic production (Castro-Rodríguez, 2019). In Peru, moreover, participation in projects was significantly associated with behavior, underscoring the importance of collaborative experiences.
In Ecuador, no behavioral predictor reached significance, suggesting difficulties in transforming intention into concrete publishing actions. This result may be linked to the mandatory nature of degree projects, which, although it has increased the intention to publish (Carranza-Esteban et al., 2022), does not always translate into academic products of quality and impact (Moreira-Mieles et al., 2020). Factors such as the limited investment in R&D (World Bank, 2024), the limited consolidation of student research networks, and the lack of specific mentoring programs reduce opportunities to complete publishing processes. Unlike Colombia, where the Publindex system offers clear incentives for publication (Castro-Rodríguez, 2019), and Peru, where courses and lectures strengthen the formative commitment (Mamani-Benito et al., 2023), the Ecuadorian context evidences a gap between the intention to publish and the institutional conditions necessary to materialize that motivation into tangible results.
The most consistent finding was that intention constitutes the dominant dimension in the three countries, confirming that projecting oneself as an author and maintaining clear goals are decisive factors in the motivation to publish. This result is closely linked to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), which highlights the role of intrinsic motivation, and to expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), which stresses the importance of self-efficacy and task valuation. In Peru, imagining oneself as an author, having in mind to publish, and not giving up were significant, which reflects the weight of academic identity in the publication process (Bandura, 1997; Lu, 2025). In Ecuador and Colombia, the weight was concentrated in “having in mind to publish”, which confirms that personal goals are the initial driver of motivation, even in contexts with structural limitations.
In relation to the integrated model, it was found that, in the three countries, intention was the dominant dimension, followed by behavior and, to a lesser extent, commitment. This pattern confirms that the motivation to publish is based on two pillars: clear personal goals and the focus on tangible results. Self-determination theory supports understanding this result by highlighting the importance of intrinsic goals, while expectancy-value theory explains how beliefs about self-efficacy and the utility of publishing strengthen the willingness to act (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Ryan & Deci, 2020). However, the low weight of commitment warns of the need to strengthen university training programs that act as a bridge between intention and concrete action, through workshops, mentoring, and writing groups (Carr et al., 2020; Lee & Boud, 2003). These findings also align with regional evidence that highlights the relevance of academic self-image and supportive institutional frameworks to increase student participation in scientific production (Beigel, 2021; Valdez et al., 2024).
Nevertheless, the methodological limitations should be recognized: convenience sampling and the unequal distribution between countries reduce the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should incorporate probabilistic and longitudinal designs that allow us to analyze how student motivation evolves as a function of changes in research policies and incentive systems.
Overall, the results suggest that the motivation to publish can be strengthened through university programs that articulate three levels: (a) consolidate the intention through the development of academic identity, (b) reinforce the behavior with publication experiences and incentive systems, and (c) sustain the commitment through continuous training and support.
The analysis has been designed to maximize interpretative clarity and ensure statistical power within each country subsample; nonetheless, it does not explicitly model the covariance structure among the three EMP-AC dimensions. Future work should consider simultaneous multivariate frameworks—such as multivariate multiple regression or structural equation modeling—once per-group sample sizes are adequate to support stable multi-group estimation and to test whether the interdependencies among dimensions alter the pattern of effects.

6. Conclusions

The study allowed us to model the motivation to publish scientific articles in university students from Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, considering the dimensions of commitment, behavior, and intention. The main findings can be summarized in four conclusions:
  • Intention constitutes the dominant dimension of motivation in the three countries, showing that imagining oneself as an author and sustaining clear goals are decisive factors in projecting oneself towards publication.
  • The behavior showed greater weight in Peru and Colombia, associated with the achievement of publications and participation in projects. In Ecuador, on the other hand, none of the predictors reached significance, which reflects structural barriers to materializing motivation in academic products.
  • Commitment had the lowest relative influence, although participation in courses or lectures was confirmed as a consistent factor, which highlights the importance of training and support in strengthening the research culture.
  • The common pattern in the three countries suggests the need for comprehensive university policies that enhance student intention but also reinforce commitment and behavior through mentoring, writing workshops, and collaborative networks to consolidate sustained trajectories of scientific publication.
From these findings, different practical implications are derived for the universities in each country. In Peru, it is recommended to strengthen scientific writing workshops and mentoring programs that accompany students until they culminate in publication. In Ecuador, it is necessary to strengthen institutional support strategies, funding for student projects, and research networks that convert the intention into concrete academic production. In Colombia, where behavior had a significant weight thanks to the Publindex system, it is suggested to consolidate and expand existing incentives, also integrating specific tutorials and collaborative spaces to ensure the continuity of student publications. These actions, adapted to national particularities, can contribute to consolidating a regional culture of scientific publication.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.L.G.-A.; methodology, L.L.G.-A.; investigation, L.L.G.-A., E.G.R.-A., J.M.C.-D. and S.P.O.-G.; formal analysis, L.L.G.-A.; data curation, S.P.O.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.L.G.-A., E.G.R.-A. and S.P.O.-G.; writing—review and editing, L.L.G.-A., E.G.R.-A., J.M.C.-D. and S.P.O.-G.; visualization, L.L.G.-A., J.M.C.-D. and E.G.R.-A.; supervision, J.M.C.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universidad César Vallejo, grant number Nº P-2024-232-VI-UCV. No additional external funds were received for the execution of the study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Project Review Report of the Ethics Committee of the Doctorate in Education of the Graduate School of Universidad César Vallejo (approval code: 1612, approval date: 13 December 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

The questionnaire was anonymous, and it was not possible to identify any participant from the responses. Participant consent was collected in accordance with the principles of opt-in. By opting to complete the questionnaire, participants expressed their consent for their responses to be processed.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions of this research are incorporated in this article. For additional information, please contact the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alcántara, V. H. M. (2019). Scientific production associated with spending and investment in research in peruvian universities. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina, 80(1), 56–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Atapour, H., Zardary, S., & Javadi, F. (2025). Identification of writing patterns, motivations, and barriers to publishing articles by faculty members in the humanities departments of the university of Tabriz in Perestigious international journals. Scientometrics Research Journal, 11(1), 281–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman; Times Books; Henry Holt & Co. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beigel, F. (2021). A multi-scale perspective for assessing publishing circuits in non-hegemonic countries. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1845923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bojo-Canales, C., & Melero, R. (2023). Open access editorial policies of SciELO health sciences journals. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carr, M., Clarkin-Phillips, J., Earl, K., Edwards, F., & Ferrier-Kerr, J. (2020). Writing group commitment and caring: Teacher educators talk about identities and agency in the third space of a writing group. Teacher Development, 24(5), 669–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carranza-Esteban, R., Turpo-Chaparro, J., Hernández, R. M., Mamani-Benito, O., & Apaza-Romero, A. (2022). Scientific production of rectors of Peruvian universities. Frontiers in Education, 7, 772887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Castillo, J. A., & Powell, M. A. (2019). Analysis scientific production from Ecuador and the impacto of international collaboration in the period 2006–2015. Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica, 42(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Castro-Rodríguez, Y. (2019). Factors contributing to the student scientific production. The case of Dentistry in the National University of San Marcos, Peru. Educacion Medica, 20, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chavarría, M., Lomonte, B., Gutierrez, J. M., Moreno, E., & Perez, A. L. (2025). Why are Latin American countries in the limbo of open-Access scientific publications? Science and Public Policy, 52(2), 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Concytec. (2019). Código Nacional de la Integridad Científica. Available online: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/concytec/informes-publicaciones/1326710-codigo-nacional-de-la-integridad-cientifica (accessed on 21 July 2025).
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  13. de Araújo, P. C., & Miguel, S. (2017). Motivąões dos discentes do programa de pós-graduação em direito da universidade federal do Paraná (UFPR) para publicar em periódicos científicos no domínio do direito. Perspectivas Em Ciencia Da Informacao, 22(1), 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. del Rio, J. A. J., & Arias-Barrionuevo, A. (2025). Influence of the salaries of the academic personnel of the co-financed universities on the number of scientific publications. Intangible Capital, 21(2), 231–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Espinoza Freire, E. (2020). La investigación formativa. Una reflexión teórica. Revista Pedagógica de La Universidad de Cienfuegos, 16(74), 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  18. Esteban, R. F. C., Hernández, R. M., Mamani-Benito, O. J., Chaparro, J. E. T., & Mamani, P. G. R. (2022). Scientific production of the nursing major’s managment personal from Peruvian universities. Revista Cubana de Enfermeria, 38(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  19. Flowerdew, J. (2013). English for research publication purposes. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 301–321). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  20. González-Sanabria, J. S., Díaz-Peñuela, J. S., & Castro-Romero, A. (2019). Analysis of citation indicators in engineering Colombian scientific journals. Informacion Tecnologica, 30(2), 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goyanes, M., & Rodríguez-Gómez, E. F. (2018). Why do we publish? Prevalence, motivations, and consequences of publish or perish. Profesional de La Informacion, 27(3), 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Harzing, A. W. (2010). The publish or perish book. Tarma Software Research. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ili, B. (2025). Academic quality or commercial concern? The role of apcs in open-access communication studies journals. TripleC, 23(1), 74–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ivanović, L., Baaden, P., Jovanović, M., & Ivanović, D. (2025). Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers’ ethics. Accountability in Research, 32(4), 459–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lambovska, M., & Yordanov, K. (2020). Motivation of researchers to publish in high-quality journals: A theoretical framework. TEM Journal, 9(1), 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lu, X. (2025). Imagination and investment: Unraveling academic identity in Chinese doctoral candidates’ publishing journeys in U.S. higher education. Applied Linguistics Review, 16(3), 1079–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Magee, R. M., & Simpson, A. T. (2019). Understanding early research experiences through the lens of connected learning. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mamani-Benito, O., Torres-Miranda, J., Apaza-Tarqui, E. E., Tito-Betancur, M., Morales-García, W. C., & Turpo-Chaparro, J. E. (2023). Development and validation of the motivation to publish scale-scientific articles (EMP-AC) for Peruvian university students. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1022876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Moral de la Rubia, J. (2019). Revisión de los criterios para validez convergente estimada a través de la Varianza Media Extraída. Psychologia, 13(2), 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moreira-Mieles, L., Morales-Intriago, J. C., Crespo-Gascón, S., & Guerrero-Casado, J. (2020). Caracterización de la producción científica de Ecuador en el periodo 2007–2017 en Scopus. Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información, 34(82), 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Niez, R. A. (2024). Faculty experiences in publishing in Scopus-indexed journals: Challenges and strategies among higher education institutions in the Philippines. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 4101–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nikita, K. S. (2022). Engaging in scientific publishing: Benefits and norms to follow as authors and reviewers [young professionals]. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 64(3), 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nuri, A., & Ismailli, T. (2025). The importance of student motivation. Science, Education and Innovations in the Context of Modern Problems, 8(6), 260–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nurkamto, J., Prihandoko, L. A., Putro, N. H. P. S., & Purwati, O. (2024). Academic writing apprehension in higher education: A systematic review. Studies in English Language and Education, 11(1), 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pinedo-López, J., Baena-Navarro, R., Carriazo-Regino, Y., Torres-Hoyos, F., & Nieves-Garces, D. (2025). Science, technology, and innovation policy and regional scientific production in Colombia: A methodological framework to address asymmetries in developing countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Price, J., Whittaker, W., Birch, S., Brocklehurst, P., & Tickle, M. (2017). Socioeconomic disparities in orthodontic treatment outcomes and expenditure on orthodontics in England’s state-funded National Health Service: A retrospective observational study. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pulido, M. (2021). How to publish in pediatrics journals with impact factor: Role of open access journals. Anales de Pediatria, 94(4), 262.e1–262.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Romić, K., & Mitrović, G. (2021). Challenges in scientific communication—Where to publish a scientific paper. Sigurnost, 63(4), 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social-emotional learning: Theory, research, and practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sherekhova, O. M. (2022). Academic literacy development among master’s degree students in the process of studying a foreign language in professional communication. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii, 31(5), 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sotomayor-Beltran, C., & Zarate Segura, G. W. (2022). Peruvian scientific production affected by predatory journals. International Information and Library Review, 54(1), 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Subedi, K. R., Sharma, S., & Bista, K. (2022). Academic identity development of doctoral scholars in an online writing group. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 17, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tanco, M., Escuder, M., Heckmann, G., Jurburg, D., & Velazquez, J. (2018). Supply chain management in Latin America: Current research and future directions. Supply Chain Management, 23(5), 412–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. The Jamovi Project. (2022). jamovi (Versión 2.3) [Computer software]. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  49. Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Gigerenzer, G., Holmes, W. R., Lewandowsky, S., Matzke, D., Murphy, M. C., Musslick, S., Popov, V., Roskies, A. L., Schure, J. T., & Teodorescu, A. R. (2025). The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(5), e2401231121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Trust, S. (2019). Knowledge valorisation for inclusive innovation and integrated African development. In Advances in African economic, social and political development (pp. 93–103). Springer Nature. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. UNESCO Publishing. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377433 (accessed on 21 July 2025).
  52. Valdez, J. W., Vergara, L. C., Orihuela, G., & Fernandez, M. (2024). Overcoming the tropical Andes publication divide: Insights from local researchers on challenges and solutions. PLoS ONE, 19(6), e0306189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. van Dalen, H. P. (2021). How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1675–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Villamarin Barragan, F. D., Andrade Olvera, G. A., Del Pozo Carrasco, J. G., & Marco Rodrigo, M. P. (2023). The scientific production of law in Ecuador: Analysis in regional databases. Bibliotecas, Anales de Investigacion, 19(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  55. Waaijer, C. J. F., Ommering, B. W. C., van der Wurff, L. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Dekker, F. W. (2019). Scientific activity by medical students: The relationship between academic publishing during medical school and publication careers after graduation. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(4), 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Warsy, A. S., & Warsy, I. A. (2019). Publish ethically or perish. Journal of Nature and Science of Medicine, 2(4), 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. World Bank. (2024). World Bank open data. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  58. Yamanel, R. G. S., Kumru, P., Eser, S. K., & Celayir, A. (2021). Barriers to writing research papers and getting them published, as perceived by turkish physicians—A cross sectional study. European Science Editing, 47, e69596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Predictors of the commitment dimension by country.
Table 1. Predictors of the commitment dimension by country.
CountrynPredictorβ*pR2
Perú167Q1 (courses/lectures)0.31<0.001 ***0.14
Q2 (databases)0.110.175
Ecuador56Q1 (courses/lectures)0.280.058 †0.09
Q2 (databases)0.050.745
Colombia45Q1 (courses/lectures)0.300.077 †0.13
Q2 (databases)0.100.560
Note. β* = standardized coefficients; R2 = proportion of variance explained by the model for each country. † p < 0.10 (marginal significance), *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Predictors of the behavioral dimension by country.
Table 2. Predictors of the behavioral dimension by country.
CountrynPredictorβ*pR2
Perú167Q5 (culminates in publication)0.37<0.001 ***0.24
Q6 (information managers)−0.080.293
Q7 (project)0.28<0.001 ***
Q8 (group)−0.010.95
Ecuador56Q5 (culminates in publication)0.050.7140.08
Q6 (information managers)0.180.196
Q7 (project)−0.090.594
Q8 (group)0.210.226
Colombia45Q5 (culminates in publication)0.51<0.001 ***0.34
Q6 (information managers)0.120.38
Q7 (project)0.180.314
Q8 (group)−0.060.728
Note. β* = standardized coefficients; R2 = proportion of variance explained by the model for each country. *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Predictors of the intention dimension by country.
Table 3. Predictors of the intention dimension by country.
CountrynPredictorβ*pR2
Perú167Q10 (imagine author)0.33<0.001 ***0.37
Q11 (publishable topic)0.020.778
Q12 (have in mind to publish)0.250.003 **
Q13 (do not give up)0.170.024 *
Ecuador56Q10 (imagine author)0.220.063 †0.48
Q11 (publishable topic)0.150.199
Q12 (have in mind to publish)0.400.002 **
Q13 (do not give up)0.160.142
Colombia45Q10 (imagine author)0.220.1740.48
Q11 (publishable topic)0.260.112
Q12 (have in mind to publish)0.360.039 *
Q13 (do not give up)00.988
Note. β* = standardized coefficients; R2 = proportion of variance explained by the model for each country. † p < 0.10 (marginal significance), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Relative contribution of dimensions to global motivation (standardized β*), by country.
Table 4. Relative contribution of dimensions to global motivation (standardized β*), by country.
Countrynβ* Commitmentβ* Behaviorβ* IntentionDominant Dimension
Perú1670.3210.4130.505Intention
Ecuador560.3160.4370.578Intention
Colombia450.270.3850.496Intention
Note. β* = standardized coefficients; R2 = proportion of variance explained by the model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Garro-Aburto, L.L.; Rivera-Arellano, E.G.; Chávez-Díaz, J.M.; Ochoa-Guevara, S.P. Motivation for Scientific Publication at the University Level: Analyses in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111468

AMA Style

Garro-Aburto LL, Rivera-Arellano EG, Chávez-Díaz JM, Ochoa-Guevara SP. Motivation for Scientific Publication at the University Level: Analyses in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(11):1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111468

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garro-Aburto, Luzmila Lourdes, Edith Gissela Rivera-Arellano, Jorge Miguel Chávez-Díaz, and Sandra Patrícia Ochoa-Guevara. 2025. "Motivation for Scientific Publication at the University Level: Analyses in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia" Education Sciences 15, no. 11: 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111468

APA Style

Garro-Aburto, L. L., Rivera-Arellano, E. G., Chávez-Díaz, J. M., & Ochoa-Guevara, S. P. (2025). Motivation for Scientific Publication at the University Level: Analyses in Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111468

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop