85
MEDICAL EDUCATION
Scientific Production and Perception of Research
among Students from Seven Dentistry Faculties
in Peru
Jesús Giancarlo Pares-Ballasco1 , María Ximena Sihuay-Torres2 ,
Rosa Lara-Verastegui3 , Manuel Antonio Mattos-Vela4
1 Scientific director. Scientific Society of Dentistry Students from the Faculty of Dentistry at National University of
San Marcos, Lima, Peru.
2 Student. National Scientific Association of Dentistry Students, Lima, Peru.
3 Graduate. National Scientific Association of Dentistry Students, Lima, Peru.
4 Associate professor. Faculty of Dentistry, National University of San Marcos, Lima, Peru.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Keywords
Education, Dental;
Scientific Communication and Diffusion;
Students, Dental;
Peru
Received: August 19, 2022
Accepted: November 12, 2022
Correspondence:
Manuel Antonio Mattos-Vela;
mmattosv@unmsm.edu.pe
How to cite: Pares-Ballasco JG, Sihuay-Torres
MX, Lara-Verastegui R, Mattos-Vela MA. Scien-
tific Production and Perception of Research in
Students from Seven Dental Faculties in Peru.
Iatreia [Internet]. 2024 Jan-Mar;37(1):85-96.
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
Copyright: © 2023
Universidad de Antioquia.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: There is limited evidence concerning the development of
academic scientific research in the field of dentistry in Peru.
Objective: To determine the scientific production and perceptions about
research among dentistry students and its association with gender, univer-
sity affiliation, and academic year.
Methods: This multi-center, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was
conducted on a non-probabilistic sample of undergraduate students from
seven dentistry faculties in Peru. Participants were provided with a structu-
red questionnaire to record general information and their views on scien-
tific research and production. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were em-
ployed to correlate the study variables.
Results: A total of 468 students participated with an average age of 21.7
years. Of these, 66.9% were female. The majority rated their knowledge in
the three assessed research areas as average. A higher number of monogra-
phs were produced by students from the Sierra region (p <0.001). Greater
production of clinical reports and theses (p <0.001) was observed among
fifth and sixth-year students. Only 11 (2.4%) students published scientific
papers, predominantly from coastal universities (p = 0.027) and in their fifth
and sixth academic years (p = 0.003).
Conclusions: The scientific production of dentistry students was found to
be low. An association was identified between certain research perception
variables and the students’ university affiliation. Additionally, a correlation
was observed between scientific publication and academic work with uni-
versity or origin and year of study.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214

86
EDUCACIÓN MEDICA
Producción científica y percepción sobre
la investigación en estudiantes de siete facultades
de Odontología del Perú
Jesús Giancarlo Pares-Ballasco1 , María Ximena Sihuay-Torres2 ,
Rosa Lara-Verastegui3 , Manuel Antonio Mattos-Vela4
1 Director científico. Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Odontología de la Facultad de Odontología de la Univer-
sidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú.
2 Estudiante. Asociación Nacional Científica de Estudiantes de Odontología, Lima, Perú.
3 Bachiller. Asociación Nacional Científica de Estudiantes de Odontología, Lima, Perú.
4 Profesor asociado. Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú.
INFORMACIÓN ARTÍCULO
Palabras clave
comunicación y Divulgación Científica;
Educación en Odontología;
Estudiantes de Odontología
Perú
Recibido: agosto 19 de 2022
Aceptado: diciembre 12 de 2022
Correspondencia:
Manuel Antonio Mattos-Vela;
mmattosv@unmsm.edu.pe
Cómo citar: Pares-Ballasco JG, Sihuay-Torres
MX, Lara-Verastegui R, Mattos-Vela MA. Pro-
ducción científica y percepción sobre la inves-
tigación en estudiantes de siete facultades de
Odontología del Perú. Iatreia [Internet]. 2024
Ene-Mar;37(1):85-96.
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
Copyright: © 2023
Universidad de Antioquia.
RESUMEN
Introducción: existe poca evidencia sobre el desarrollo de la investigación
científica universitaria en el área odontológica en el Perú.
Objetivo: determinar la producción científica y la percepción sobre la in-
vestigación en estudiantes de Odontología y su relación con el sexo, univer-
sidad de procedencia y año de estudio.
Métodos: estudio multicéntrico, descriptivo y transversal en una muestra
no probabilística de estudiantes de pregrado de siete facultades de Odon-
tología del Perú, a quienes se entregó un cuestionario estructurado para
registrar datos generales y percepción sobre la investigación y producción
científica. Se aplicaron las pruebas chi cuadrado y exacta de Fisher para re-
lacionar las variables de estudio.
Resultados: participaron 468 estudiantes con una edad media de 21,7
años, de los cuales 66,9% fueron mujeres. La mayoría calificó como regular
sus conocimientos en las tres áreas de investigación evaluadas. Se encontró
una mayor producción de monografías en los estudiantes de la Sierra (p
<0,001) y mayor producción de reportes clínicos y tesis (p <0,001) en los
estudiantes de quinto y sexto años. Solo 11 (2,4%) estudiantes publicaron
artículos científicos, la mayoría de las universidades de la costa (p = 0,027) y
pertenecientes al quinto y sexto años de estudio (p = 0,003).
Conclusiones: la producción científica de los estudiantes de Odontología
fue baja. Se encontró relación entre algunas variables de percepción de la
investigación con la universidad de procedencia. También hubo relación
entre la publicación científica y la elaboración de trabajos académicos con
la universidad de procedencia y el año de estudio.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214

87Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
INTRODUCTION
Scientific research holds a pivotal role in the education of undergraduate students in health scien-
ces. It facilitates the development of skills and abilities for independent inquiry, equips them with
competencies to critically assess literature, fosters a deeper reflection and analysis to form judg-
ments, encourages the application of the scientific method, enhances their organizational skills,
and promotes the development and internalization of autonomous learning activities. These ac-
tivities are perceived as an inherent part of their medical training, bolstering their understanding
and integration of new knowledge into their clinical practice and laying a stronger foundation for
postgraduate studies (1-3).
At present, studies conducted in universities from various countries, including China, Malaysia,
the United States, Cuba, and Peru, indicate that dentistry students exhibit a keen interest in scientific
research and can significantly contribute to the genesis of new knowledge (1,4-7). However, the-
se students often report numerous challenges encountered during their undergraduate journey,
such as time constraints, lack of proper guidance, inadequate or just average knowledge and skills
pertaining to scientific research, absence of incentives, and funding shortages (1,4,5). This scenario
potentially highlights a gap in integrating research within the curriculum, potentially compromising
the training of future scientists.
Scientific production involves a spectrum of activities, many of which can be undertaken by stu-
dents: participating in research groups, initiating student scientific journals, spearheading research
projects, publishing articles, among other endeavors (8). Within the context of Latin America and
the Caribbean, it is noteworthy that student contributions to 20 dentistry journals indexed in SciELO
account for 2.3% of the articles published between 2005-2017 (9). In Peru specifically, a mere 3.5%
of dentistry students have reported publications (10). Furthermore, the majority of student scientific
societies in dentistry (or research groups) in Peru were established in 2020, and to date, there’s no
Peruvian student dental journal, in contrast to Chile, which boasts the ANACEO journal (11).
Literature showcases that the incorporation of scientific research in advanced dental education
in Peru is lagging, and there’s limited encouragement to publish standard academic works, such as
theses or other similar projects (10,12). In various countries, the interest and perception of students
in fields like stomatology, dental hygiene, and dentistry regarding research have been explored
(1,4-6); despite this, evidence specific to Latin America and, more so, Peru remains scant and largely
anecdotal. Additionally, there’s limited research contrasting student scientific production with per-
ceptions about research during undergraduate programs. For instance, a study by Castro Rodríguez
et al. (10) delved into this subject within a Peruvian dentistry faculty. The understanding of students’
perceptions towards scientific research across diverse regions of Peru remains elusive as studies
concerning national dental scientific production suggest that this challenge is not confined to a
singular Peruvian institution. With an intent to sketch a comprehensive landscape of the Peruvian
scenario, this study aimed to ascertain the scientific output and research perceptions among stu-
dents from seven dentistry faculties in Peru.
This research is poised to offer valuable insights when redirecting or reformulating the conven-
tional approach to teaching scientific research within academic and clinical modules. It can aid in
crafting educational proposals that align with student needs, inviting them to immerse in research
activities and ultimately striving for a top-tier dental education.
METHODS
A multicentric, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was conducted. The study population
consisted of undergraduate students from seven faculties of dentistry from the following Peruvian

88Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
universities (abbreviation-city): Federico Villarreal National University (UNFV-Lima), National Uni-
versity of San Marcos (UNMSM-Lima), National University San Luis Gonzaga (UNICA-Ica), San Juan
Bautista University (USJB-Ica), National University of the Altiplano (UNA-Puno), Andean University
Néstor Cáceres Velásquez (UANCV-Juliaca), and Peruvian University of the Andes (UPLA-Huancayo).
The first four are situated in the coastal region, and the last three in the Sierra (Andean) region of
Peru. The country’s major cities, with a larger population and economic development, are located
on the coast.
For the development of this study, collaboration was obtained from the Permanent Department
of Scientific Research of the National Association of Dentistry Students of Peru, which is comprised
of students from each of the seven faculties of dentistry aforementioned. Thus, the research team
collaborated with students from each of the faculties who were trained in survey techniques (11).
All dentistry students (from the first to the sixth year of studies) enrolled in academic Cycles
I and II of 2020 were included, excluding those who chose not to participate in the study. Even
though students in their first two years might have less knowledge about research and chances
of publication, they were included in this study to capture a comprehensive view of the variables
studied and to compare results with other studies that also included these students. A non-pro-
babilistic sampling type was chosen due to the social isolation and physical distancing measures
implemented by the Peruvian government as preventive actions against COVID-19.
Evaluation by a research ethics committee was deemed unnecessary due to the low risk to the
study subjects. Data collection was done through a survey; however, consent to participate in the
study was requested at the beginning of the questionnaire, ensuring confidentiality of the informa-
tion provided among other assurances.
A questionnaire adapted from the study by Castro-Rodríguez et al. (8) was used, which was pre-
pared using Google Forms. A pilot was previously conducted with 12 students applying the virtual
form, noting certain annotations applied in the final execution.
The instrument consisted of 15 questions divided into four sections. The first section collected
information about age, gender, university of origin, academic year, and participation in research
groups. The second section evaluated student perception through interest in research, the impor-
tance of publishing, and the limitations for research during undergraduate studies. The third section
assessed the students’ self-perception through questions with gradual responses (none and defi-
cient, regular, good, and very good) regarding knowledge of research methodology, scientific wri-
ting, and information search. The fourth section evaluated scientific production through academic
works, publication of scientific articles, and the type of article published. The DOI or article title was
also requested to verify the information provided.
The questionnaire was delivered to each participant via social media (Facebook and Whats-
App) from September to December 2020; no incentives were offered for completing it. A researcher
was responsible for verifying the data collected in each survey and selecting those that would be
included in the study. An anonymous database was created, allowing a blind evaluation by two
researchers.
Data analysis was performed using the SPSS statistical package version 25. Surveys that did not
complete the requested information were excluded from the final analysis. Descriptive statistics were
applied to the study variables using frequency distribution tables. Additionally, a bivariate analysis was
conducted linking the variables of interest with gender, university of origin, and year of study using
the chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. To facilitate statistical analysis and understanding in the presen-
tation of the results, the university of origin was dichotomized into universities from the Costa region
and universities from the Sierra region. Similarly, study years were grouped into first and second year,
third and fourth year, and fifth and sixth year. A significance level of 5% was applied.

89Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
RESULTS
A total of 492 completed questionnaires were obtained, of which 24 were eliminated mainly
due to missing or inconsistent information. The final study sample consisted of 468 students from
seven faculties of dentistry in Peru, with an average age (± standard deviation) of 21.7 (± 3.5) years.
The most frequent age group was 21 to 24-year-olds (214 students, 45.7%), females (313, 66.9%),
students from the National University of the Altiplano (73, 15.6%), those in their third academic year
(94, 20.1%), and those not belonging to a research group (266, 56.8%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of Dentistry Students from seven Peruvian Universities during 2020
Variable n %
Age
17-20 years 186 39.7
21-24 years 214 45.7
25-28 years 53 11.3
29 or more years 15 3.2
Gender
Male 155 33.1
Female 313 66.9
University
Andean University Néstor Cáceres Velásquez 66 14.1
National University of the Altiplano 73 15.6
Federico Villarreal National University 68 14.5
National University of San Marcos 72 15.4
National University San Luis Gonzaga 64 13.7
Peruvian University of the Andes 66 14.1
San Juan Bautista University 59 12.6
Academic Year
1st year 83 17.7
2nd year 83 17.7
3rd year 94 20.1
4th year 93 19.9
5th year 85 18.2
6th year 30 6.4
Participation in Research Groups*
Student Research Group 174 37.2
Professor and Student Research Groups 28 6.0
Does not belong to any Research Group 266 56.8
Others 5 1.1
* More than one possible answer
Source: Own elaboration

90Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
Regarding the perception of research, the vast majority of students expressed interest (94.7%).
405 (86.5%) believed that the importance of academic publishing is to increase scientific knowled-
ge, and 320 (68.4%) identified the lack of adequate guidance as the main limitation for research
during undergraduate studies. When comparing these three variables with gender, university of
origin, and year of study, only a statistically significant relationship was found between interest in re-
search (p = 0.014) and the importance of publishing academic papers (p <0.05) with the university
of origin. It was observed that interest in research and the perception of the importance of various
motives for publishing were greater in universities from the Sierra region. Also, the year of study
was related to the perception of the importance of research as it contributes to increasing scientific
knowledge (p = 0.046), and this was perceived as more important by upper-year students (Table 2).
Table 2. Perception of Research among Dentistry Students by gender, region of origin and year of study, 2020
Research
perception
Total
(%n)
Gender
p
Region of origin
p
Year of study
pMale
(%n)
Female
(%n)
Univ.
Coast
(%n)
Univ.
Sierra
(%n)
1st-2nd
(%n)
3rd-4th
(%n)
5th-6th
(%n)
Interest
Yes 443
(94.7)
144
(92.9)
299
(95.5) 0.235 243
(92.)
200
(97.6) 0.014 154
(92.8)
178
(95.2)
111
(96.5) 0.357
No 25 (5.3) 11
(7.1)
14
(4.5)
20
(7.6)
5
(2.4)
12
(7.2)
9
(4.8)
4
(3.5)
Importance
Increases
prestige
71
(15.2)
30
(19.4)
41
(13.1) 0.076 51
(19.4)
20
(9.8) 0.004 26
(15.7)
32
(17.1)
13
(11.3) 0.384
Enhances CV 81
(17.3)
23
(14.8)
58
(18.5) 0.320 58
(22.1)
23
(11.2) 0.002 21
(12.7)
39
(20.9)
21
(18.3) 0.120
Increases scientific
knowledge
405
(86.5)
133
(85.8)
272
(86.9) 0.744 237
(90.1)
168
(82.0) 0.010 135
(81.3)
166
(88.8)
104
(90.4) 0.046
Stimulates the
student
170
(36.3)
57
(36.8)
113
(36.1) 0.887 116
(44.1)
54
(26.3) <0.001 61 (36.7) 69
(36.9)
40
(34.8) 0.924
Other reasons 3
(0.6)
Limitations
Lack of proper
guidance
320
(68.4)
103
(66.5)
217
(69.3) 0.529 182
(69.2)
138
(67.3) 0.664 109
(65.7)
132
(70.6)
79
(68.7) 0.608
Lack of research
equipment
188
(40.2)
65
(41.9
123
(39.3) 0.584 113
(43.0)
75
(36.6) 0.162 69
(41.6)
70
(37.4)
49
(42.6) 0.606
Lack of proper
mentors
248
(53.0)
77
(49.7)
171
(54.6) 0.312 147
(55.9)
101
(49.3) 0.154 79
(47.6)
103
(55.1)
66
(57.4) 0.205
Lack of time 177
(37.8)
52
(33.5)
125
(39.9) 0.180 106
(40.3)
71
(34.6) 0.209 72
(43.4)
62
(33.2)
43
(37.4) 0.141
Lack of knowledge 209
(44.7)
61
(39.4)
148
(47.3) 0.104 127
(48.3)
82
(40.0) 0.074 74
(44.6)
80
(42.8)
55
(47.8) 0.693
Lack of academic
incentives
133
(28.4)
42
(27.1)
91
(29.1) 0.655 78
(29.7)
55
(26.8) 0.501 43
(25.9)
56
(29.9)
34
(29.6) 0.669
Others 1
(0.2)
Univ. Coast: Universities from the Coast region. Univ. Sierra: Universities from the Sierra region
Source: Own elaboration

91Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
The majority of students believed that their knowledge in research methodology (54.9%), scien-
tific writing (55.8%), and information search (50.2%) was average. When relating these variables to
gender, university of origin, and year of study, only a statistically significant relationship was found
between the perception of knowledge in research methodology (p = 0.002) and information search
(p = 0.006) with the university of origin; there was a higher positive perception among students
from the Sierra region (Table 3).
Table 3. Self-perception of research knowledge among Dentistry Students by gender, region of origin and
year of study, 2020
Perception
Total
n
(%)
Gender
p
Region of origin
p
Year of study
pMale
(%n)
Female
(%n)
Univ.
Coast
(%n)
Univ.
Sierra
(%n)
1st-
2nd
(%n)
3rd-
4th
(%n)
5th-
6th
(%n)
Research methodology
None-Poor 47
(10)
17
(11.0)
30
(9.6) 0.424 25
(9.5)
22
(10.7) 0.002 20
(12.0)
16
(8.6)
11
(9.6) 0.391
Regular 257
(54.9)
90
(58.1)
167
(53.4)
163
(62.0)
94
(45.9)
82
(49.4)
112
(59.9)
63
(54.8)
Good-Very
good
164
(35.0)
48
(31.0)
116
(37.1)
75
(28.5)
89
(43.4)
64
(38.6)
59
(31.6)
41
(35.7)
Scientific writing
None-Poor 88
(18.8)
28
(18.1)
60
(19.2) 0.880 51
(19.4) 37 (18.0) 0.162 25
(15.1)
40
(21.4)
23
(20.0) 0.314
Regular 261
(55.8)
89
(57.4)
172
(55.0)
154
(58.6)
107
(52.2)
91
(54.8)
107
(57.2)
63
(54.8)
Good-Very
good
119
(25.4)
38
(24.5)
81
(25.9)
58
(22.1)
61
(29.8)
50
(30.1)
40
(21.4) 29 (25.2)
Information search
None-Poor 30
(6.4)
7
(4.5)
23
(7.3) 0.261 16
(6.1)
14
(6.8) 0.006 14
(8.4)
12
(6.4)
4
(3.5) 0.133
Regular 235
(50.2)
85
(54.8)
150
(47.9)
149
(56.7)
86
(42.0)
78
(47.0)
104
(55.6)
53
(46.1)
Good-Very
good
203
(43.4)
63
(40.6)
140
(44.7)
98
(37.3)
105
(51.2)
74
(44.6)
71
(38.0)
58
(50.4)
Univ. Coast: Universities from the Coast region. Univ. Sierra: Universities from the Sierra region
Source: Own elaboration
Regarding scientific production, all Dentistry students indicated they engaged in academic
activities within the university setting. The most frequent activities were the preparation of mono-
graphs (414 [88.5%]), followed by reports (326 [69.6%]) and literature reviews (256 [54.7%]). Only 11
(2.4%) students published scientific articles, all of which were original, and some reported a second
publication: a review article (9.1%) and a letter to the editor (9.1%). A higher production of monogra-
phs was found among students from the Sierra region (p <0.001) and a higher production of clinical
reports (p <0.001) and theses (p <0.001) among fifth and sixth-year students. Additionally, more
scientific article publications were found among students from universities in the Costa region (p =
0.027) and those in the fifth and sixth years of study (p = 0.003) (Table 4).

92Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
Table 4. Scientific production of Dentistry Students by gender, region of origin and year of study, 2020
Scientific
Production
Total
(%n)
Gender
p
Region of origin
p
Year of study
pMale
(%n)
Female
(%n)
Univ. Coast
(%n)
Univ. Sierra
(%n)
1st-2nd
(%n)
3rd-4th
(%n)
5th-6th
(%)
Academic Works
Monograph 414
(88.5)
136
(87.7)
278
(88.8) 0.732 220
(83.7)
194
(94.6) <0.001 145
(87.3)
166
(88.8)
103
(89.6) 0.837
Literature reviews 256
(54.7)
80
(52.9)
174
(55.6) 0.582 142
(54.0)
114
(55.6) 0.727 92
(55.4)
98
(52.4)
66
(57.4) 0.681
Reports 326
(69.6)
144
(73.5)
212
(67.7) 0.198 187
(71.1)
139
(67.8) 0.441 110
(66.3)
122
(65.2)
94
(81.7) 0.005
Clinical report 128
(27.4)
42
(27.1)
86
(27.5) 0.931 72
(27.4)
56
(27.3) 0.989 15
(9.0)
59
(31.6)
54
(47.0) <0.001
Thesis 50
(10.7
20
(12.9)
30
(9.6) 0.274 22
(8.4)
28
(13.7) 0.066 10
(6.0)
7
(3.7)
33
(28.7) <0.001
Other 13
(2.8)
Article published in scientific journal
Yes 11
(2.4)
3
(1.9)
8
(2.6) 1 10
(3.8)
1
(0.5) 0.027 0
(0)
4
(2.1)
7
(6.1) 0.003
No 457
(97.6)
152
(98.1)
305
(97.4)
253
(96.2)
204
(99.5)
166
(100)
183
(97.9)
108
(93.9)
Type of published article
Original article 11
(100)
Review article 1
(9.1)
Short communi-
cation
0
(0)
Letter to the editor 1
(9.1)
Other 0
(0)
Univ. Coast: Universities from the Coast region. Univ. Sierra: Universities from the Sierra region
Source: Own elaboration
DISCUSSION
This study showed that almost all students from seven faculties of dentistry in Peru are interested
in scientific research and recognize its importance in contributing to knowledge. This aligns with
reports from dentistry faculties in Peru and Cuba (10,13). No significant differences were found ba-
sed on gender or academic year. This information should be leveraged by the relevant authorities
to promote research activities from the early years of training as well as equitable participation of
both males and females to reduce gender inequality in scientific research (14). These findings differ
from those of Corrales et al. (6), who argue that interest increases as students progress through their
academic cycles and is higher in males; this contrasts with the findings of Alarco et al. (14). Further-
more, one study reported that students from public management universities have a higher interest
in scientific research (15), contrasting with this study where students from the Sierra region (two of
the three studied universities are private) showed greater interest in research (15).
A possible explanation for these results, regarding interest and the importance of scientific re-
search perceived regardless of gender and academic year, is the context under which the study was
conducted. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the necessity and significance of research through

93Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
the generation and dissemination of knowledge on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and control of
the new disease. It also emphasized the scientific contributions of various health professions in the
search for solutions (16). However, it is essential for students to recognize the benefits of their practice
on personal, professional, and institutional levels (17). Students from the Costa region placed more
importance on publishing academic papers than students from the Sierra region, which might be
attributed to more exposure and opportunities for publishing in their academic environments.
This interest can progressively decrease as students encounter obstacles during their under-
graduate training for scientific research (18). This study highlighted three challenges: lack of proper
guidance, mentorship, and knowledge. This aligns with the findings of studies like that of Mayta-
Tristán et al. (19) among medical students in eight Latin American countries (6,10,13).
Most surveyed students perceived their research knowledge as average. This was previously re-
ported by Castro-Rodríguez et al. (10), and similar findings were found by Brito et al. (20) and Nakan-
dari et al. (21) in multicentric studies among medical students in 12 Latin countries and 19 Peruvian
faculties, respectively. This shows that this issue isn’t new or exclusive to Peruvian dentistry. On the
other hand, students from the Sierra region had a better perception of their knowledge in research
methodology and information searching, which translates into a higher production of monographs
as self-reported. However, this did not translate into more scientific publications.
A potential solution to the perceived average knowledge is student scientific societies. These extra-
curricular learning communities aim to develop research skills in their members through methodologi-
cal seminars, writing workshops, information search workshops, critical reading clubs, research project
development, and participation in scientific conferences (22). This study identified that only 37.2% of
respondents belong to a student research group. However, it is important to consider that in Peru, most
student scientific societies in Dentistry were established in 2020 (23). The current situation of these so-
cieties is concerning, as it was reported that out of 10, only 2 have institutional recognition, and 4 are
inactive (23). This contradicts the fundamental role of the university in promoting scientific activity (24).
It is essential for professors who teach research subjects or are thesis advisors to take respon-
sibility for promoting student scientific production, to which, ideally, they should be continuously
linked (25). In contrast, studies show the low publication of articles by Peruvian health career ad-
visors (26-29). In a Peruvian faculty, it was shown that out of 344 theses defended between 2010-
2018, only 14 (4.06%) were published as scientific articles (12). This might suggest deficiencies in
strategies to conclude the research process. This study reports that the most common curricular
academic works are monographs, reports, and literature reviews, and only 11 students (2.4%) ma-
naged to publish a scientific article. This implies that the habit of scientific production is scarcely
encouraged in dentistry faculties, which is counterproductive since the mentioned activities mainly
require students to search, select, and synthesize information under a teacher’s supervision.
Additionally, the preparation of theses and clinical reports was statistically more frequent in the
last two years of training. Students nearing the end of their undergraduate studies might prefer to
advance with their theses because Peruvian Law Nº 30220 requires them to defend them to obtain
a professional degree. Likewise, clinical procedures increase as students progress in their training. It
is essential for these academic works not to be perceived merely as a final grade for a subject but
as an opportunity for updating literature and possibly generating and developing research ideas.
It is recommended for the guiding teacher to act as a coach, motivating the student, listening and
attending to them, being competent, using a clear and precise methodology, and showing com-
mitment to training future researchers (30).
On the other hand, other studies agree with the low percentage of student publication repor-
ted in this study. For example, in a faculty of dentistry in Peru, it was found that student publication
was 3.5% (10). At the Latin American and Caribbean level, Peruvian student participation was low
(3.3%) in scientific journals indexed in SciELO, surpassed by Brazil (50.3%), Colombia (19.7%), and
Chile (15.8%) (9). The reality of student scientific production does not differ from the national scien-
tific production of dentistry, which, according to the Scimago Journal and Country Rank, is ranked

94Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
51st worldwide (31). However, Mayta-Tovalino et al. (32), despite reporting low publication frequen-
cies, supported significant growth in scientific production of dentistry faculties after the establish-
ment of University Law N° 30220. This was enacted in 2014 to seek the continuous improvement of
the university educational model in Peru (24).
For Peruvian medical students, Torres-Huamanchuco et al. (33) indicated that 20% managed to
publish a manuscript. At the Latin American level, Sánchez-Duque et al. (34) determined that 19.2%
had authorship in a scientific article. However, it should be considered that the samples addressed in
these studies were students enrolled in extracurricular online training courses on writing and scientific
publication, which could lead to higher participation of students linked with research. Additionally, a
reliable record of student publications wasn’t provided. One strength of this study was verifying this
information by requesting the DOI or title of the research, which was not done in the aforementioned
studies, so the frequency of scientific publications they reported might be overestimated (10,33-34).
Students from the Costa region and those in the final years of study published more scientific arti-
cles. In the first case, this might be interpreted as larger, more established universities with more resou-
rces and research support being located in this region. In the second case, it might be due to students
having a longer study trajectory and, therefore, more publication opportunities than first-year students.
Since non-probabilistic sampling was used, the identified statistical relationships cannot be ex-
trapolated but should be assumed referentially. However, this is a preliminary approach to the eva-
luated problem, as information was collected from dentistry students from different regions of Peru.
More research is needed, albeit with probabilistic samples, to corroborate the findings of this study.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the majority of students expressed interest in scientific research and recognized its
importance in contributing to knowledge. The most perceived limitation for scientific research du-
ring undergraduate studies was the lack of proper guidance. Furthermore, most students rated their
knowledge in research methodology, scientific writing, and information searching as average.
A relationship was only found between the perception of interest in research, the importance of
publishing, and knowledge in research methodology and information searching with the university
of origin. On the other hand, scientific publication by undergraduate dentistry students in Peru was
low, with the most commonly published type being original articles and the most frequent acade-
mic work being monographs. Lastly, there was a relationship between scientific publication and the
preparation of academic works with the university of origin and the year of study.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Ping W. Dental undergraduate students’ participation in research in China: Current state and directions.
Eur J Dent Educ [Internet]. 2015;19(3):177–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12119
2. Guven Y, Uysal O. The importance of student research projects in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ.
2011;15(2):90–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00645.x
3. Rashid-Habib S, Saud-AlOtaibi S, Abdulrahman-Abdullatif F, Mohammed-AlAhmad I. Knowledge and at-
titude of undergraduate dental students towards research. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad [Internet]. 2018
[consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 30(3):443-448. Disponible en: https://jamc.ayubmed.edu.pk/jamc/index.php/
jamc/article/view/2759/2002

95Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
4. Kyaw-Soe H, Than NN, Lwin H, Nu-Htay M, Phyu KL, Abas AL. Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers toward re-
search: The perspectives of undergraduate medical and dental students. J Educ Health Promot [Internet].
2018;7(1):23. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_61_17
5. Partido BB, Colón M. Motivations and Challenges Towards Research Activities Among Undergraduate
Dental Hygiene Students. J Dent Hyg [Internet]. 2019 [consltado 2022 Dic 1]; 93(5):23–31. Disponible en:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31628173/
6. Corrales-Reyes IE, Fornaris-Cedeño Y, Valdés-Gamboa L, Dorta-Contreras AJ, Mejia CR. Socio-educational
factors associated to perception of research among stomatology students in a cuban university. J Oral
Res [Internet]. 2019 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 8(1):13–21. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/
articulo?codigo=7018494
7. Castro-Rodríguez Y, Valenzuela-Torres O, Saucedo-García A, Laura-Lopez N, Apaza-Choque C. Interés por la
investigación entre estudiantes de una escuela de odontología en Lima. Rev Cubana Estomatol [Internet].
2020 [consultado 2022 Dic 1];57(4):1–16. Disponible en: http://www.revestomatologia.sld.cu/index.php/
est/article/view/3400
8. Castro-Rodríguez Y. Factores que contribuyen en la producción científica estudiantil. El caso de Odonto-
logia en la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Perú. Educ Med [Internet]. 2019 [consultado 2022
Dic 1]; 20:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2017.10.002
9. Castro-Rodríguez Y, Corrales-Reyes I, Roca-Sacramento C, Romero-Vegas L, Rodríguez-Romero M, Sihuay-
Torres K. Student participation in dental scientific journals in latin america and the caribbean. J Oral Res
[Internet]. 2019;8(2):140–6. https://doi.org/10.17126/%x
10. Castro-Rodríguez Y, Sihuay-Torres K, Perez-Jiménez V. Producción científica y percepción de la investiga-
ción por estudiantes de odontología. Educ Med [Internet]. 2018;19(1):19–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edumed.2016.11.001
11. Lara-Verastegui R. The national scientific association of dental students of Peru - ANACEOP. J Oral Res [In-
ternet]. 2020;9(6):440–2. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8062993
12. Castro-Rodríguez Y, Hinojosa-Añorga M, Torres-Robles G, Roca-Sacramento C, Rojas-Ortega R. Tesis sus-
tentadas y publicadas por estudiantes de las ciencias de la salud en Perú. EduMeCentro [Internet]. 2020
[consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 12(1):15–29. Disponible en: https://www.medigraphic.com/cgi-bin/new/resu-
men.cgi?IDARTICULO=95143
13. Magariño-Abreus L, Echevarría-Regojo L, Rivero-Morey RJ, Ramos-Rangel Y. Percepción sobre investiga-
ción científica en estudiantes de estomatología. Universidad Médica Pinareña [Internet]. 2021 [consultado
2022 Dic 1]; 17(2):e737. Disponible en: http://revgaleno.sld.cu/index.php/ump/article/view/737
14. Alarco JJ, Changllio-Calle G, Cahuana-Salazar M. Investigación en pregrado: interés según sexo y ciclo
académico. Educ Med [Internet]. 2017;18(1):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2016.04.004
15. Aniceto-Prado VO. La investigación científica en estudiantes de estomatología. Rev. Cienciamatria [Inter-
net]. 2021;7(1):519–31. https://doi.org/10.35381/cm.v7i1.563
16. Liu J, Nie H, Li S, Chen X, Cao H, Ren J, et al. Tracing the Pace of COVID-19 Research: Topic Modeling and
Evolution. Big Data Research [Internet]. 2021;25:100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2021.100236
17. Petrella JK, Jung AP. Undergraduate Research: Importance, Benefits, and Challenges. Int J Exerc Sci [Inter-
net]. 2008 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 1(3):91. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4739295/
18. Corrales-Reyes IE, Rodríguez-García M J, Reyes-Pérez JJ, García-Raga M. Limitantes de la producción cien-
tífica estudiantil. Educ Med [Internet]. 2017;18(3):199–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2016.11.005
19. Mayta-Tristán P, Cartagena-Klein R, Pereyra-Elías R, Portillo A, Rodríguez-Morales AJ. Apreciación de estu-
diantes de Medicina latinoamericanos sobre la capacitación universitaria en investigación científica. Rev
Med Chile. [Internet]. 2013 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 141(6):716–22. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/
scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872013000600005&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es
20. Brito JD, Escobar JS, Urizar C, Ayala JN. Percepción sobre la capacitación universitaria en investigación mé-
dica: Un estudio Latinoamericano. An Fac Cienc Méd [Internet]. 2020 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 53(2):47–52.

96Pares et al.
IATREIA. Vol. 37 Núm. 1. (2024). DOI 10.17533/udea.iatreia.214
Disponible en: http://scielo.iics.una.py/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1816-89492020000200047&ln
g=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es
21. Nakandakari MD. Apreciación estudiantil de la investigación médica en pregrado: estudio multicéntrico
en 19 universidades. Rev Fac Med Hum [Internet]. 2019 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 19(4):74–83. Disponible
en: http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2308-05312019000400012&lng=es&nr
m=iso&tlng=es
22. Castro-Rodríguez Y, Pares-Ballasco JG. Actividades académicas, investigativas y de difusión de las Socieda-
des Científicas de Estudiantes de Odontología en el Perú. Odontol Sanmarquina [Internet]. 2022 [consul-
tado 2022 Dic 1]; 25(2):e22689–e22689. https://doi.org/10.15381/os.v25i2.22689
23. Pares-Ballasco G, Laura-López N. Estrategias para favorecer el desarrollo inicial de las sociedades científicas
de estudiantes de odontología. Odontol Sanmarquina [Internet]. 2021 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 24(1):109–
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/os.v24i1.19705
24. SUNEDU. Sunedu establece Condiciones Básicas de Calidad para la autorización de programas bajo las
modalidades semipresencial y a distancia [Internet]. [consultado 2022 Dic 1]. Disponible en: https://www.
sunedu.gob.pe/sunedu-establece-condiciones-basicas-de-calidad-para-la-autorizacion-de-programas-
bajo-las-modalidades-semipresencial-y-a-distancia/
25. Miyahira J. ¿Por qué la tasa de publicación de las tesis en Medicina es baja? Posibles explicaciones. Rev
Méd Hered [Internet]. 2015 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 26(4):207–8. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.pe/
scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1018-130X2015000400001
26. Atamari-Anahui N, Sucasaca-Rodríguez C, Marroquin-Santa Cruz JA. Publicación científica de asesores de
tesis de pregrado en una escuela de medicina de Cusco, Perú. Inv Ed Med [Internet]. 2016 [consultado
2022 Dic 1]; 5(20):279–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2016.05.002
27. Mamani-Benito OJ, Farfán-Solís R. Publicación científica de asesores de tesis de enfermería de tres univer-
sidades del departamento de Puno, Perú. Rev Cuba Enferm [Internet]. 2020 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 36(4).
Disponible en: http://www.revenfermeria.sld.cu/index.php/enf/article/view/3355
28. Contreras-Cordova CR, Ccoicca-Hinojosa FJ, Atencio-Paulino JI, Paucar-Huaman W, Sedano-Matias CJ. Pu-
blicación científica de asesores de tesis en una facultad de medicina humana de Huancayo, Perú. Educ
Med Super [Internet]. 2021 [consultado 2022 Dic 1]; 35(1):e2037–e2037. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.
cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21412021000100014
29. Solís-Guevara FD, Aguilar-Huillca AI, Cruz-Quilla MH. Producción científica de asesores de tesis: ¿cuál es
la realidad de la carrera de Nutrición en el Perú? Horiz Med [Internet]. 2022 [consultado 2022 Dic 1];
22(1):e1497–e1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.24265/horizmed.2022.v22n1.09
30. Mamani-Benito OJ. El asesor de tesis como Coach: una alternativa para impulsar la producción científica
estudiantil. Educ Med Super [Internet]. 2019 [consultado 2022 Dic 1];33(1):1–13. Disponible en: http://
scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21412019000100019&lng=es
31. SJR - International Science Ranking [Internet]. [consultado 2022 Dic 1]. Disponible en: https://www.scima-
gojr.com/countryrank.php?area=3500
32. Mayta-Tovalino F, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Diaz-Soriano A, Perez-Vargas F, Munive-Degregori A, Luza S. Biblio-
metric Study of the National Scientific Production of All Peruvian Schools of Dentistry in Scopus. Int J Dent
[Internet]. 2021:5510209. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5510209
33. Toro-Huamanchumo CJ, Failoc-Rojas VE, Díaz-Vélez C. Participación en sociedades científicas estudian-
tiles y en cursos extracurriculares de investigación, asociados a la producción científica de estudiantes
de medicina humana: estudio preliminar. FEM Rev la Fund Educ Médica [Internet]. 2015 [consultado
2022 Dic 1]; 18(4):293–8. Disponible en: https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2014-
98322015000500011&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es
34. Sánchez-Duque JA, Gómez-González JF, Rodríguez-Morales AJ. Publicación desde el pregrado en La-
tinoamérica: dificultades y factores asociados en estudiantes de Medicina. Inv Ed Med [Internet].
2017;6(22):104–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2016.07.003