Introduction: Research competence and scientific production in university professors are widely recognized due to the direct impact both have on the quality of teaching and the academic reputation of institutions. Objectives: this research aimed to explore the correlation between research competence and the level of scientific production in a group of University Professors. Methodology: this population consisted of 14 educationalists currently working in a Public University in the highlands of Ecuador. This is a correlational study that involved a Likert-type scale, and the review of publication records. The Likert scale verified the self-perception of participants regarding their research competence. The review of publication records, on the other hand, compared their self-perception of the research competence with that of their real scientific production. Results: results display a disconnection between the 2 associative variables. Although participants affirm that their research competence is high, the records of their scientific production say otherwise. Conclusions: in general, this study might serve as the starting point to scrutinize external causal relations which are present in the self-perception of the research competence and cannot be examined adequately with correlational studies. General area of study: education. Specific area of study: academic management and evaluation. Type of study: correlational study.

The first step is necessary to review the meanings about thecompetencies which the university professor should take account in theresearching environment. According to Morozova & Fadeeva (2007,cited by Ivanenko et al., 2015), they can be competencies related toacquiring knowledge, it means systematize, develop analysis aboutscientific information, express in an appropriate way her/his opinion,the usage of cognitive skills to solve problems, use technology in amastering way. To be able to analyze the results of a research accordingto a theory in an objective form.

According to Cárdenas et al. (2021, cited by Cardoza et al., 2023),another important characteristic related to researching competencies isthe fact that the university professors should maintain activities,which improve their abilities about researching as, review scientificsources constantly, create scientific articles to inform about theirdiscoveries.

Developing researching projects to university professors is a complexwork because it represents changes constantly in the training, in theformat of projects and researching skills, technological resources whichare useful to know, they are demanding requirements that researchershould accomplish in the researching environment (Pérez-Penup &Romero, 2024).

Many factors as the promotion of the institutional level of auniversity is a demand over the professors to create production, thiswill permit the visualization of the institution in researchingenvironment in a country, or in the world. The advances that theuniversity professors present, to permit that the improvement of theresearching conditions of their institutions because this is arequirement for the universities and this one is a duty to theprofessors as researchers as part of their role (Barros & Turpo,2018). Researching is considered as a basic function of colleges; thisis a fundamental part of the training to students and an advance oftheir professions. It is a fact that the society is linked with theindividual results of professors who lead these activities to improvethe communities and each person who is a basic element of thissurrounding.

Researching had become so relevant because this is a reflex of theacademic level of universities; it is measured according to thescientific production. The academic researchers should demonstrate asignificant role due to the skills are present in their profile asresearching knowledge, communication competencies, research motivation(Shabib Hasan, 2021).

The production of scientific activity is validated and legitimized byacademic experts according to the kind of papers. A group of researcherspresent their researching work through published papers about thescientific activity. They are indicators of the level to which theirscientific knowledge in their area of research has been developed. Whena university needs to be evaluated related their scientific production,this became in a complex activity, because there are many differentareas of academic knowledge, they can be Medicine, Laws, Education,Engineering, each one has their own peculiarity. However, theuniversities should produce constantly innovations to advance in theiractivities and work (Campos & Figaro, 2009).

Universities are places where the innovation is present. Therefore,in the production of academic papers the presence of the professors anduniversity students is the base of this academic activity. The resultsare visualized when a university become accredited and get positionslike another university in the world, this is related with the processof accreditation, which is directed by governments. This one is achallenge to the different levels into de the universities likeauthorities, administrative offices, academic levels, students. Thepromotion and motivation to produce the scientific projects and papersis an activity which must be organized by universities to support theinnovation between professors and students. The academic area is a placewhere the rules and requirements to advance in this academic aspect areclear and the work from researching and innovation is demonstrated bythe increasing of scientific awards which are obtained, according toacademic effort from professors in a university (Siancas et al.,2023).

The academic researching production receive some influences, they arerelated about the roles of the university professors, who must work asresearchers and professors, and divided their time in these activities.According to Fox (1992, cited by Carayol & Matt, 2004), academicresearch and teaching activities are complementary or competitiveactivities. However, these activities must be considered as actions bothreinforce each one. Because of, the activities as teaching andresearching allow to professors publish topics which content lookforward solutions to different problems which exist in the universityenvironment or in the closest areas as cities, communities which needchanges in technology or advance in different social levels. Theprofessors show that researching is an activity so necessary to evolvein the university environment, and the usage of time must be organizedto work in these activities.

To analyze of the scientific production of a university is a processso complex and it refers to the number of scientific articles publishedin relevant journals. It is a fact that it is necessary consider theimage of university depends on the level of scientific production is arequirement to this kind of instructional institution. To publishscientific articles, demonstrate the combination of knowledge in aphysical way as technological innovations, visible changes in the socialinteractions, advance in education and no visible results related to theadvance of self-esteem of the students as an example, due to the usageof critical thinking become an instrument learned in theteaching-learning process. All these aspects are taken account toconstruct the scientific production. When the professor shares tostudents the results of a research through lectures, papers or books, aprocess of knowledge is providing, and the students internalize thisdata (Dumitru, 2008).

An essential component of the university mission is the scientificproduction of professors. It means the purpose of the university. Inaddition, the vision is the development of the organization becomes in areality. The conceptualization of the vision can be an ideal, themission reflexes the pragmatic side of the institution. The internalimage of the institution and on the aims are represented by Vision,although Mission represents on the external image of the university(Brătianu, 2003 cite by Dumitru, 2008). It is a fact that the evaluationof the scientific production is developed at the physical level. Itmeans through instruments which reflex the place, the number of paperswhich can be read, seen and measured. Therefore, when the academic staffaccomplished with the mission of a university, it means they haveproduced scientific articles providing a high level of academic rankingthrough the environment of universities placed in the local geography orworld.

This research work investigated the connotation between researchcompetence and the level of scientific production among universityprofessors at a public university. Fourteen professors consented toparticipate, providing sociodemographic information and self-assessmentsof their research capabilities. The research design included bothdescriptive and comparative analyses, and the following steps weredeveloped:

Participant selection: fourteen university professors, currentlyemployed at a public university, were selected. Their sociodemographicdetails were collected, including age, gender, academic rank, researchexperience, and teaching experience.

Data collection: a structured questionnaire was used, it was forgathering sociodemographic information and self-assessments of researchcompetence across five dimensions: literature review, research design,data analysis, publication record, and research supervision.Additionally, their scientific production from 2022 to 2024 wasrecorded.

Demographic analysis: the demographic data were tabulated (table 1).The majority (57.14%) were aged 34-39, predominantly women (71.43%),with most holding adjunct positions (71.42%). Research experiencevaried, with half having 0-5 years, and teaching experience ranged from7 to 26 years.

Comparative analysis: comparative analysis was conducted (table 2),to examine the relationship between research competence and scientificproduction across different sociodemographic variables. Mean (M) andstandard deviation (SD) were calculated for each research competencedimension and scientific production level.

Correlational analysis: to understand the relationship betweenresearch competence and scientific production, Spearman's rhocorrelation was utilized due to the non-normal distribution of thedependent variable. Correlations were analyzed at the 0.01 significancelevel (2-tailed), as summarized in table 3.

Discussion and interpretation: the results were discussed in thecontext of existing literature, highlighting discrepancies betweenself-perceived competence and actual scientific output. Potential biasesand limitations were acknowledged, such as the influence of academicnarcissism on self-assessment and the incomplete capture of allscientific contributions through institutional repositories.

The results in table 1 highlight the demographic and professionaldiversity of the participants in this study. The collected data allowedto obtain a comprehensive view of the characteristics and experiences ofthe university professors involved. This diversity provides a valuablecontext for interpreting the study's findings. Additionally, variabilityin age, gender, academic rank, and professional experience adds depth tothe analysis, thus contributing to a more robust understanding ofuniversity faculty dynamics.

Expanding upon the above, table 1 encapsulates the demographicinformation of respondents. Fourteen university professors currentlyworking in a public university consented to participate in this study.Out of them, 8 participants (57,14%) are ranging in age from 34 to 39years. Three participants (21,43%) are between 42-46 years. Besides, 3participants (21,43%) are aged between 55-60. For the gender, 10participants (71,43%) are women, while 4 participants (28,57%) are men.Regarding the academic rank, 4 respondents (28,57%) are adjunctprofessors, whilst 10 participants (71,42%) hold a tenured position. Asfor their experience as university researchers, 7 participants (50%) areexperienced in the research field from 0 to 5 years. Four participants(28,57%) are between 6-8 years. Moreover, 3 participants (21,43%)sustained that their research experience goes from 10 to 15 years. Asfar as their experience as university professors is concerned, 5respondents (35,71%) are between 7-10 years of experience in universityeducation. Seven participants (50%) have worked in higher education from11 to 19 years. The final 2 respondents (14%) have dedicated from 22 to26 years to serve higher education.

Note: M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation

Table 2 presents the comparative analysis of the 5 dimensionsemployed in the Likert scale, plus the level of scientific production,both segmented according to the sociodemographic variables of table 1.In general, an increase in the means with age is observed in allcomponents evaluated. The 55-60-year-old group shows the highest meansin almost all components. Regarding gender, differences in the means andstandard deviations stand out. Women have lower means in all components,except for scientific production. Men, on the other hand, show highermeans on most dimensions. Between tenured and adjunct professors,differences are observed in the means and standard deviations. Tenuredprofessors have higher means in all components, while adjunct professorsshow higher scientific production. Experience as a university researcheralso influences in mean difference. Researchers with more years ofexperience tend to have higher means in all components, highlightingdata analysis and publication of records. Finally, experience asuniversity professor reveals differences. Professors with more years ofexperience tend to have higher means in all components, althoughscientific production may vary.

**. The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Given the p-values in both the Shapiro-Wilk (0.0003093), and theLilliefors (0.001066) normality tests corresponding to scientificproduction, the non-parametric Spearman rho test was used at the 0.01significance level (2-tailed). The 5 components employed in theinstrument to probe the research competence of 14 University Professorswere compared with their level of scientific production generated during2022-2024.

The result (0,304, p=.01) shows no correlation between the literaturereview and the scientific production. The research design and thescientific production report similar results (0,183, p=.01). The dataanalysis and the scientific production also display no correlation(0,033, p=.01). As for the publication record and the scientificproduction, both are not correlated (0,193, p=.01). There is a parallelsituation between the research supervision and the scientific production(0,049, p=.01).

These results indicate the lower the research competence, the lowerthe level of scientific production. Although the described relationsuggests utilizing a negative directional analysis (left-tailed), anon-directional scrutiny (2-tailed) was invoked. This enabled thedetection of any correlation, whether positive or negative. Furthermore,it is related to the research question proposed at the beginning of thestudy. In short, table 3 summarizes correlation results for the researchcompetence and the scientific production

The research question in this study examined the association betweenthe research competence and the level of scientific production generatedin 2022-2024 by a group of university professors within a publicuniversity.

Research competence and scientific production in universities arefundamental pillars for academic advancement and social progress in anycountry. Professors with strong research skills are not only betterequipped to impart up-to-date knowledge, but they can also inspire theirstudents to engage in research and contribute to scientific knowledge(Mas & Tejada, 2013). For this to occur, it is crucial to implementprofessional development programs, namely, workshops, seminars andcollaborations with experienced researchers. By doing so, an academicculture of continuous improvement and updating can be promoted (Mas,2012).

In line with the importance of cultivating research skills in theacademic field, it is essential to evaluate how these competencies aretransferred into real scientific production. Professional developmentprograms are vital to nurture these skills, but their final impact isevinced when examining the relationship between the perception ofresearch competence and effective scientific production.

Seen in this light, the results obtained in this research present adual panorama. On the one hand, the first data collection instrument(the Likert scale) discloses that participants perceive their researchcompetence as high, which is encouraging. However, when associatingthese perceptions with their level of scientific production recorded ininstitutional repositories, the results are less optimistic. Thesefindings are consistent with limited previous studies, which suggestthat a high self-perception of competence is not always translated intoan equivalent academic performance (Böttcher-Oschmann et al., 2021;Fairman et al., 2021; Ingram et al., 2022; Latorre, 2020; Marrs et al.,2022; Petko et al., 2020; Poh & Kanesan, 2019; Torres &Hernández-Gress, 2021). These results highlight the importance offurther exploring the factors that influence scientific production,beyond individual perception of competence (MacLeod & Urquiloa,2021).

Along the same lines, this study faces several limitations thatshould be considered when interpreting the results. First,self-assessment of research competence may be biased by factors such asacademic narcissism or lack of awareness on the necessary abilities foreffective research. Second, scientific output measured throughinstitutional repositories may not fully capture all facultycontributions, especially those in nontraditional forms such asunindexed publications or undocumented collaborations. Third, it isimportant to keep in mind that the correlation between researchcompetence and scientific production does not necessarily imply a directcausal relationship. Other factors, such as workload, institutionalsupport and collaboration opportunities, can also influence scientificproduction.

Given also possible objections, it is crucial to highlight that thisstudy provides a starting point for future research. Prospectiveinvestigation could further explore the underlying mechanisms in thediscrepancy between the research competence and the scientificproduction and consider other relevant variables such as the onesmentioned above. The implications of these findings are significant forprofessional development and institutional evaluation. Theseimplications underscore the importance of fostering an academicenvironment that promotes both a more ethical perception of researchcompetence and real scientific production among universityprofessors.