University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez

ISSN: 2309-8333

RNPS: 2411

|14|2026|

This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

Review article

How to cite:

Roman-Acosta, D., &

Domínguez Albear, Y. (2026). From

agreements to active networks: epistemic

value for managing cooperation,

internationalization, and relations with the

academic world.

Estrategia y Gestión

Universitaria

, 14, e9143.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20008603

Received: 15/04/2026

Accepted: 06/05/2026

Published: 12/05/2026

Corresponding author:

danieldavidromanacosta@gmail.com

Conflict of interest:

the authors declare

that they have no conflict of interest,

which may have influenced the results

obtained or the proposed interpretations

From agreements to active networks:

epistemic value for managing

cooperation, internationalization, and

relations with the academic world

De convenios a redes vivas: utilidad

epistémica para gestionar cooperación,

internacionalización y vinculación

universitaria

Dos acordos às redes ativas: utilidade

epistêmica para gerenciar a cooperação,

a internacionalização e o

relacionamento com o mundo

universitário

Abstract

Introduction: a management gap persists in higher education

institutions: agreements and contacts increase, while

sustained and impactful academic cooperation remains

uneven. Objective: to interpret the evolution of academic

networks and to propose epistemic utility as a lens for

understanding their sustainability and their articulation with

internationalization, extension, and social engagement.

Methodology: a qualitative narrative review with thematic

synthesis was conducted; studies were searched in SciELO,

Redalyc and Dialnet (2020–2026), in Spanish and English,

including reviews, empirical studies and case studies, with

screening documented using a flow diagram. Results: the

literature shows that networks have positioned themselves as

coordination infrastructure for universities in digital and

hybrid environments; their continuity is associated with

governance, leadership, institutional support and digital

infrastructure with clear rules; their contribution is evident

when they connect international cooperation with territorial

engagement through projects, outputs and knowledge

transfer; management improves when it prioritizes active

partnerships and evaluates verifiable outcomes. Conclusion:

sustainability depends on the value generated; epistemic

utility, understood as the cognitive‑practical value of

exchange, allows distinguishing active networks from nominal

ties and guides institutional decisions toward impact.

Keywords: university cooperation, international education,

higher education, university extension, epistemic utility

Resumen

Introducción: en las instituciones de educación superior

persiste una brecha de gestión: aumentan convenios y

contactos, mientras la cooperación académica con

continuidad e impacto sigue siendo irregular.

Daniel Roman-Acosta

Universidad Pedagógica Experimental

Libertador

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4300-9174

danieldavidromanacosta@gmail.com

Venezuela

Yanet Domínguez Albear

Universidad de Ciencias Pedagógicas

Enrique José Varona

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1024-5613

yanetda@ucpejv.edu.cu

Cuba

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria

ISSN

: 2309-8333

RNPS:

2411

| Vol. 14 |2026|

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

Objetivo:

interpretar la evolución de las redes académicas y proponer la utilidad

epistémica como lente para comprender su sostenibilidad y su articulación con

internacionalización, extensión y vinculación social.

Metodología:

se realizó una

revisión narrativa cualitativa con síntesis temática; se buscaron estudios en

SciELO, Redalyc y Dialnet (2020–2026), en español e inglés, incluyendo revisiones,

estudios empíricos y estudios de caso, con cribado documentado mediante

diagrama de flujo.

Resultados:

la literatura muestra que las redes se han

posicionado como infraestructura de coordinación universitaria en entornos

digitales e híbridos; su continuidad se asocia a gobernanza, liderazgo, soporte

institucional e infraestructura digital con reglas claras; su aporte se evidencia

cuando conectan cooperación internacional con vinculación territorial mediante

proyectos, productos y transferencia; la gestión mejora cuando prioriza alianzas

activas y evalúa por resultados verificables.

Conclusión:

la sostenibilidad

depende del valor generado; la utilidad epistémica, entendida como valor

cognitivo-práctico del intercambio, permite distinguir redes activas de vínculos

nominales y orientar decisiones institucionales hacia impacto.

Palabras clave:

cooperación universitaria, educación internacional, educación

superior, extensión universitaria, utilidad epistémica

Resumo

Introdução: nas instituições de ensino superior persiste uma lacuna de gestão:

aumentam convênios e contatos, enquanto a cooperação acadêmica com

continuidade e impacto permanece irregular. Objetivo: interpretar a evolução das

redes acadêmicas e propor a utilidade epistêmica como lente para compreender

sua sustentabilidade e sua articulação com internacionalização, extensão e

vinculação social. Metodologia: realizou‑se uma revisão narrativa qualitativa com

síntese temática; buscaram‑se estudos na SciELO, Redalyc e Dialnet (2020–2026),

em espanhol e inglês, incluindo revisões, estudos empíricos e estudos de caso, com

triagem documentada por meio de diagrama de fluxo. Resultados: a literatura

indica que as redes se posicionaram como infraestrutura de coordenação

universitária em ambientes digitais e híbridos; sua continuidade associa‑se à

governança, liderança, suporte institucional e infraestrutura digital com regras

claras; sua contribuição é evidenciada quando conectam cooperação internacional

com vinculação territorial por meio de projetos, produtos e transferência de

conhecimento; a gestão melhora quando prioriza parcerias ativas e avalia por

resultados verificáveis. Conclusão: a sustentabilidade depende do valor gerado; a

utilidade epistêmica, entendida como o valor cognitivo‑prático da troca, permite

distinguir redes ativas de vínculos nominais e orientar decisões institucionais rumo

ao impacto.

Palavras-chave:

cooperação universitária, educação internacional, ensino

superior, extensão universitária, utilidade epistêmica

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Introduction

A recurring management symptom plagues many higher education

institutions: formal agreements proliferate, reported alliances multiply, and

contacts expand, yet sustained cooperation with verifiable results remains sporadic.

This tension raises a practical question: under what conditions does connectivity

translate into academic collaboration, organizational learning, and meaningful

territorial impact? This manuscript addresses that problem and proposes an

interpretive framework for university strategic management.

The contemporary university operates within a social logic organized by

networks, flows, and nodes, where relational position conditions access to

information, collaboration, and recognition (Castells, 2000; Day, 2019; Flores Torres,

2020). Digital transformation accelerates exchanges, expands cooperation

platforms, and reorganizes academic production routines, directly affecting the

coordination of research, teaching, and engagement (Ramos-Zaga, 2024). In this

context, university management requires criteria for deciding which connections

warrant strategic investment and how to sustain them over time.

In this article, academic networks are understood as webs of relationships

among researchers, groups, units, and institutions that coordinate the production,

circulation, and validation of knowledge. Their relevance materializes when they

enable sustained cooperation, mobilize capacities, and stabilize shared agendas.

Regional literature highlights their contribution to scientific collaboration,

knowledge transfer, and collective synergy, as well as their potential to sustain

collaborative practices in virtual environments (Román Acosta & Rodríguez Torres,

2024). This evidence supports a management criterion: a network matters for its

products and continuity, not merely for its declared existence.

Internationalization is incorporated as a strategic dimension that reorders

institutional priorities. Foundational approaches link it to curriculum, cooperation,

and research (Knight, 2003, 2005), while critical perspectives caution against

instrumentalization and visibility pressures, tensions that are intensified in Latin

America by asymmetries and restricted access to cooperation (De Wit, 2024; Labraña

Vargas & Brunner, 2020; De Giusti, 2025; Gacel-Ávila et al., 2024).

In parallel, university outreach and societal engagement are understood as

processes that connect academic production with external actors and dynamics. The

literature indicates that relevance and legitimacy are strengthened when stable

links, territorial articulation, and university-society transfer mechanisms exist

(Verdezoto Reinoso et al., 2025; López & Obregón, 2025a, 2025b; Maldonado Moreno

& Obregón, 2025; Ayala & Rivas-Martínez, 2026). Thus, networks,

internationalization, and engagement converge on a single imperative: coordinating

relationships to produce verifiable impact.

To avoid theoretical leaps, the manuscript adopts a multi-level articulation.

At the macro level, the network society describes an environment where an

institution's relational position conditions access to information, collaboration, and

recognition, making networks a strategic resource for university performance

(Castells, 2000). At the meso level, a network is understood as an operational

assembly of actors, rules, and mediations that enables cooperation to be coordinated

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

under real conditions. This perspective shifts the emphasis from "having links" to

"making links work" through devices, routines, and coordination agreements (Latour,

2005).

At the micro level, networks gain density when they operate as communities

of practice, where collaboration stabilizes shared repertoires and fosters learning

through participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). This dynamic is

sustained because much of the academic craft circulates as tacit knowledge,

transmitted more effectively through interaction, feedback, and situated practice

(Polanyi, 1966). Finally, the structure of the academic field introduces a distributive

dimension: resources, recognition, and opportunities associated with networks

accumulate as scientific capital, helping to explain unequal access and the

differential effects of cooperation (Bourdieu, 2001). With this articulation,

epistemic utility is proposed as an integrative lens for describing the cognitive-

practical value that keeps cooperation active and turns interaction into verifiable

capacities and products.

Implementation gaps, however, persist. Studies on internationalization,

accreditation, and university cooperation show that institutional value is

compromised when collaboration operates as a formality, with problems in

activation, follow-up, and continuity (Becerra et al., 2024; Barquero Morales et al.,

2024). The literature on development alliances emphasizes that productive

cooperation requires shared objectives, governance, resources, and evaluation.

Proposals such as circular cooperation reinforce the centrality of reciprocity and

shared responsibility (Rodríguez Cotilla, 2023; Paletta, 2024; Glennie, 2025). Here,

management faces a task of discernment: distinguishing nominal relationships from

those capable of sustaining academic production, innovation, and territorial work.

To address this distinction, an interpretive category is introduced: epistemic

utility, understood as the cognitive-practical value that actors recognize in a

network's exchanges, expressed through guidance on criteria, access to repertoires,

reduction of academic uncertainty, and strengthened agency for research and

writing. This lens engages with tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966), communities of

practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), and the dynamics of scientific capital

within the academic field (Bourdieu, 2001). The sustainability of networks and

alliances is also linked to leadership and governance: transformational and

distributed leadership are associated with cultural change, continuity, and

institutional appropriation; digitalization and emerging technologies introduce risks

that demand ethical and regulatory criteria in academic coordination (Bass, 1985;

Burns, 1978; Cuenca, 2025; Jiménez & González, 2026; Pérez-Ugena Coromina, 2024;

Peña-García et al., 2026).

Based on these elements, the article presents a qualitative narrative review

aimed at interpreting the evolution of academic networks in higher education and

proposing epistemic utility as a lens for understanding their sustainability and impact

on internationalization, outreach, and social engagement (Roman-Acosta, 2025).

The review is structured around four guiding questions that organize the

results section: (1) What stages or shifts help us understand the evolution of

academic networks in contemporary higher education? (2) What relational and

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

managerial mechanisms explain their continuity, including trust, reciprocity,

governance, and institutional support? (3) How do networks articulate

internationalization with outreach and territorial engagement, connecting university

capacities with local problems? (4) What strategic implications arise for university

management regarding leadership, incentives, and an organizational infrastructure

oriented toward verifiable outcomes? The manuscript is organized into five sections:

methodology, results by thematic axis, a discussion oriented toward management

decisions, and conclusions.

Methodology

A qualitative narrative review with thematic synthesis was conducted. This

choice aligns with the manuscript's purpose: to integrate heterogeneous evidence

(reviews, empirical studies, and case studies) and develop an interpretive reading

useful for university management. In this field, a narrative review is appropriate

when the goal is to organize debates, identify patterns, and build an applied

conceptual framework, rather than to estimate effects or answer efficacy questions

using the exhaustive criteria typical of systematic reviews. To enhance reported

transparency, the identification and screening process was documented using a flow

diagram based on PRISMA 2020, and the quality of the narrative review was

addressed using the SANRA criteria (Page et al., 2021; Baethge et al., 2019; Grant &

Booth, 2009).

Information sources and search strategy

The search was conducted in SciELO, Redalyc, and Dialnet for publications

in Spanish and English with a time window of 2020-2026. These databases were

selected for two reasons: (1) their coverage and availability of Ibero-American and

Latin American open-access literature, which is pertinent for analyzing academic

networks, internationalization, and engagement from the Global South; and (2) their

institutional accessibility, given that Scopus and WoS require a subscription. This

decision is acknowledged as a coverage limitation, so no claim of global corpus

exhaustiveness is made (a limitation explicitly noted in the discussion section).

Combinations of terms in Spanish and English, adjusted to each database's

engine, were used. The base strategy applied (with minor syntax variations

depending on the platform): ("redes académicas" OR "redes de investigación" OR

"academic networks" OR "research networks" OR "scientific collaboration") AND

("educación superior" OR universidad OR "higher education") AND

(internacionalización OR "internationalization" OR extensión OR "university

extension" OR vinculación OR "community engagement") AND (gestión OR gobernanza

OR liderazgo OR "governance" OR management). Filters: 2020-2026; Spanish/English;

document type: review articles, empirical articles, and case studies. Bibliographic

management and deduplication were performed using Mendeley.

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they addressed academic networks in higher

education and provided evidence or argumentation on: (i) network evolution, (ii)

sustainability mechanisms (governance, leadership, institutional support, digital

mediation), (iii) articulation with internationalization and/or outreach/engagement,

and (iv) implications for university management. Letters to the editor, documents

in other languages, and non-pertinent designs were excluded. The category

previously reported as "without variables of interest" is specified as follows: texts

that mentioned networks tangentially or descriptively without developing findings,

categories, or results related to network sustainability/management, without a link

to higher education, or without a connection to the defined analytical axes

(governance, internationalization, outreach/engagement, impact).

Selection and screening process

The identification, screening, and selection process was reported using a

PRISMA flow diagram, following recommendations for transparency in presenting the

flow of records, exclusions, and reasons for exclusion (Page et al., 2021).

In the identification phase, 864 results were registered: SciELO (n = 148),

Dialnet (n = 456), and Redalyc (n = 260). Before screening, 221 duplicates were

removed using Mendeley, leaving 643 records for title and abstract examination. At

this stage, 417 were excluded for not addressing the topic. Subsequently, 226 reports

were sought for retrieval; 28 could not be retrieved due to lack of full-text access.

Full-text analysis for eligibility was applied to 198 reports. In this phase, 162

documents were excluded for the following reasons: other language (n = 6), letter

to the editor (n = 19), other design (n = 51), and absence of variables of interest (n

= 86). The final corpus consisted of 36 studies included in the review.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the study selection process according to PRISMA

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Quality criteria

Given the narrative nature and methodological heterogeneity of the corpus,

a descriptive assessment of reporting quality and thematic relevance was conducted

during the full-text analysis, paying attention to the clarity of the objective,

coherence of the design, transparency of the procedure, and relevance to the study's

axes. This decision is consistent with recommendations that propose explicit criteria

for evaluating narrative reviews and maintaining their editorial rigor.

Records identified from

databases:

ScIElo (n = 148)

Dialnet (n = 456)

Redalyc (n = 260)

Total N = 864 Records

Records removed before

screening:

Duplicate records removed by

Mendeley (n = 221)

Records screened (n = 643)

Records excluded for not addressing

the topic (n = 417)

Reports sought for retrieval

(n = 226)

Reports not retrieved / No full-text

access (n = 28)

Reports assessed for

eligibility (n = 198)

Reports excluded:

Other language (n = 6)

Letter to the editor (n = 19)

Other design (n = 51)

Without variables of interest (n

= 86)

Identification of studies via databases and records

Identification

Screening

Inclusion

Total studies included in the

review (n = 36)

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Results and discussion

The results are organized into four thematic axes. The first synthesizes the

recent evolution of academic networks in the 2020-2026 period. The second

identifies mechanisms that explain the continuity or fragility of networks, with

emphasis on governance, leadership, and digital mediation. The third examines how

networks operate as infrastructure for articulating internationalization and

territorial engagement. The fourth integrates strategic implications for university

management, highlighting criteria for alliance activation, results-based evaluation,

and digital governance challenges.

The evolution of academic networks in higher education

Academic networks are no longer seen as a mere accessory for exchange but

are increasingly and consistently described as a structural condition of university

functioning. In the recent period, the network has become a space where a

substantive part of knowledge circulation, agenda coordination, and institutional

responsiveness is defined. This shift is linked to digital transformation, which has

reconfigured teaching and research routines, accelerated platform-mediated

collaboration, and turned connectivity into a strategic resource that influences

visibility, productivity, and relevance (Ramos-Zaga, 2024; Sánchez Arreaga et al.,

2025). Academic interaction now unfolds in hybrid environments that combine

institutional spaces and open settings, expanding opportunities for sustaining

distributed cooperation, though it also introduces frictions related to platform

dependency, speed pressures, and the reorganization of academic time. Here, the

discussion on "platformization" provides a framework for understanding how digital

infrastructures affect rhythms, autonomy, and modes of collaboration, with direct

implications for the continuity of ties (Jiménez & González, 2026).

In network-focused studies, another shift is observable: the language of

"collaboration" gains density and begins to structure the field, displacing readings

centered on "exchange." A narrative review on scientific collaboration in education

positions collaboration as the core of networks, implying they should be understood

as spaces where shared repertoires are built, cognitive tasks are distributed, and

knowledge production routines are stabilized (Román-Cao et al., 2025). In the same

vein, a transition from individual efforts to collective synergies is reported,

emphasizing that a network's value is expressed when it manages to coordinate

capacities and sustain interaction continuously; in virtual environments, moreover,

its motivational and organizational support function in high-demand scenarios is

documented (Román Acosta & Rodríguez Torres, 2024).

This evolution connects with a cross-cutting problem in academic practice:

the conditions that facilitate or hinder research in real-world settings. A systematic

review identifies that scientific production depends on institutional and relational

mediations typically organized through support, mentoring, and access to active

communities (Perines & Roman-Acosta, 2026). Finally, network strengthening

appears associated with institutional priorities of internationalization, quality, and

social relevance, which push toward more consistent and comparable forms of

cooperation (Gacel-Ávila et al., 2024; Fliguer et al., 2025), with an additional turn

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

toward an internationalization oriented to social contributions and external impact

(Cai & Leask, 2026).

Even though the literature coincides in describing a shift toward networks as

infrastructure, analytical limitations should be noted. A portion of the work treats a

network as a desirable outcome or as evidence of institutional modernization, with

little attention to the mechanisms that produce continuity and the conditions that

make collaboration verifiable. This tendency pushes toward descriptions of "network

expansion" without distinguishing relational density, reciprocity, and quality of

interaction. Furthermore, several contributions assume that digitalization inherently

strengthens cooperation, while analyses of platformization warn of frictions that

reorganize academic time, incentives, and collaborative depth, risking faster but

less sustainable links (Jiménez & González, 2026; Ramos-Zaga, 2024). An evidence

gap is also identified: diagnoses and typologies predominate, while comparative

approaches showing how a network translates into concrete products, agenda

continuity, and institutional capacities remain scarce, a central issue in reviews that

position collaboration as the operational core of networks (Román-Cao et al., 2025).

This set of tensions suggests that the evolution of networks must be read alongside

criteria of functioning and generated value, paving the way for the sustainability

mechanisms addressed in the next axis.

As a synthesis of this axis, Table 1 organizes the identified trends and the

references that support them.

Table 1

Evolution of academic networks in higher education

Trend 2020-2026

How it is expressed in the

literature

Corpus

references

(2020-2026)

Digitalization and hybridization

of collaboration

Connectivity and hybrid

environments reorder

academic routines and

expand possibilities for

cooperation

Ramos-Zaga

(2024);

Sánchez

Arreaga et al.

(2025)

Intensification of

platformization

Digital mediation modifies

time, coordination, and

conditions of academic work

Jiménez &

González

(2026)

Consolidation of collaboration

as the core of networks

Networks are described as

spaces for coordinating

practices, repertoires, and

shared production

Román-Cao et

al. (2025)

Networks as motivational and

continuity support

The network sustains faculty

participation and

commitment in virtual

environments

Román Acosta

& Rodríguez

Torres (2024)

Networks as a condition for

sustaining research in teaching

practice

Research is facilitated or

blocked according to

institutional and relational

Perines &

Roman-Acosta

(2026)

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

conditions associated with

active networks

Networks and reorientation

toward

internationalization/quality

with a social purpose

Cooperation and societal

orientation push networks

toward greater consistency

and verifiable products

Gacel-Ávila et

al. (2024);

Fliguer et al.

(2025); Cai &

Leask (2026)

Networks and university

educational transformation

Networks become a device for

responding to changes in

educational models and

relevance

Sánchez-

Pástor (2024)

Digitalization and hybridization

Overload/fragmentation due

to platformization

Jiménez &

González

(2026)

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Mechanisms that sustain or weaken academic networks

Recent evidence converges on a point of direct interest to university

management: an academic network becomes sustainable when its interaction leaves

repeatable traces. These traces take the form of coordinated work, shared learning,

the circulation of repertoires, project continuity, and outcomes recognized by the

community. When these signals fade, the network becomes intermittent, dependent

on individual will, and fragments in the face of any change in agenda or leadership.

Therefore, the question shifts from "what is a network" to a more demanding one:

what keeps it alive when institutional pressure grows and academic time is squeezed

(Román-Cao et al., 2025; Perines & Roman-Acosta, 2026).

A first set of mechanisms is located at the level of governance. The literature

on distributed leadership underscores that the sustainability of complex initiatives

improves when coordination capacities are shared, roles are clarified, and a

decision-making structure not dependent on a single figure is created (Cuenca, 2025;

Ahumada Figueroa et al., 2023). Within this framework, the network is strengthened

when operational agreements exist regarding responsibilities, priorities, and

coordination methods. Transformational leadership provides a relevant complement

by focusing on institutional climate, collective motivation, and the strategic

direction of collaborative effort, elements associated with innovation and cultural

change in educational institutions (Muñoz-Chávez et al., 2022; Pallango Espín et al.,

2025). In managerial terms, these approaches converge on a practical idea: without

leadership and rules for continuity, a network behaves like a sum of contacts; with

governance, the network functions as institutional infrastructure.

A second set of mechanisms appears in digital mediation. Between 2020 and

2026, the hybridization of academic work and dependence on digital environments

for coordinating teaching, research, and collaboration were consolidated. This shift

opens opportunities for sustaining distributed interaction, though it also introduces

frictions related to overload, speed, productivity pressures, and the reorganization

of academic time (Ramos-Zaga, 2024; Sánchez Arreaga et al., 2025). The discussion

on platformization describes an additional tension: when cooperation is organized

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

around platform logics, interaction can become transactional and fragmented,

affecting the sense of intellectual work and the stability of collaborative ties

(Jiménez & González, 2026). For university management, this evidence suggests a

concrete task: equipping networks with infrastructure and usage norms that reduce

friction, protect collaboration time, and maintain focus on pertinent academic

outcomes.

A third set of mechanisms relates to the quality of interaction and the

conditions that facilitate research in practice. The literature examining the

facilitators of and barriers to research within teaching work warns that research

continuity depends on institutional supports, access to academic communities, and

mediations that sustain the process beyond individual intention (Perines & Roman-

Acosta, 2026). This line connects with studies on scientific collaboration in networks,

where the network is understood as a space for coordinating practices and shared

production, with direct effects on learning and career consolidation (Román-Cao et

al., 2025). In management terms, this invites looking at a network through the lens

of installed capacity: the network grows when it offers practical guidance, feedback,

and clear pathways for converting interaction into verifiable products.

The discussion on regulatory approaches to artificial intelligence in different

contexts underscores that technological adoption demands frameworks of

transparency, accountability, and usage criteria, especially when it intervenes in

institutional decisions (Pérez-Ugena Coromina, 2024). Debates on algorithmic biases

and dialogic reflection add that technological mediation can reinforce inequalities

if applied without a focus on inclusion and critical oversight (Peña-García et al.,

2026). For academic networks operating in digital environments, this evidence

translates into a direct implication: the sustainability of collaboration also depends

on trust in the devices, clarity about interaction rules, and the protection of fair

academic practices. Table 2 organizes the mechanisms that the 2020-2026 literature

associates with the sustainability or weakening of academic networks, indicating

their typical manifestation and their interpretation from a university management

perspective.

Table 2

Sustainability mechanisms of academic networks

Mechanism

How it

manifests in

academic

networks

Interpretation for

university

management

References

Distributed governance

Shared roles,

horizontal

coordination,

continuity of

initiatives

Design roles,

decision-making

rules, and

responsibilities;

avoid dependence

on a single figure

Cuenca

(2025);

Ahumada

Figueroa et

al.

(2023)

Leadership oriented

toward change and

innovation

Collaborative

climate,

collective

Align networks

with strategic

priorities; sustain

Muñoz-

Chávez et al.

(2022);

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

motivation,

impetus for new

practices

a collaborative

culture

Pallango

Espín et al.

(2025)

Institutional

infrastructure and

support

Spaces, time,

minimum

resources for

coordination and

production

Provide "light

infrastructure"

that reduces

friction and

sustains continuity

Perines &

Roman-

Acosta

(2026);

Román-Cao

et al. (2025)

Hybridization and

digital mediation

Remote

coordination,

asynchronous

work, continuity

via platforms

Establish usage

norms, protect

academic time,

manage overload

Ramos-Zaga

(2024);

Sánchez

Arreaga et

al. (2025)

Platformization and

productivity pressure

Fragmented

interaction,

acceleration,

loss of

collaborative

depth

Design indicators

that reward

collaboration

quality and

verifiable products

Jiménez &

González

(2026)

Conditions for

sustaining research in

teaching practice

Barriers and

facilitators

influence

participation and

continuity

Prioritize

mentoring,

resources, and an

active academic

community

Perines &

Roman-

Acosta

(2026)

AI governance and

regulatory frameworks

Need for

transparency,

accountability,

and risk control

Define criteria for

use, auditing, and

accountability in

mediated

decisions

Pérez-Ugena

Coromina

(2024)

Inclusion and bias

control in digital

mediation

Risk of inequality

and algorithmic

biases

Incorporate a

focus on inclusion,

critical review,

and correction

mechanisms

Peña-García

et al. (2026)

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Networks as infrastructure for articulation

The reviewed literature shows that internationalization is increasingly

understood less as an administrative block and more as a dynamic activated when

networks capable of coordinating sustained academic cooperation exist. In this

approach, value shifts toward integration with curriculum, research, quality

standards, and institutional responsibility. Internationalization of the curriculum and

academic mobility are presented as connected components whose effectiveness

depends on coherence with institutional purposes (Álvarez-Salgado et al., 2024),

while quality assurance places internationalization within a logic of internal and

external improvement linked to evaluation and organizational consistency (Fliguer

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

et al., 2025). In the Latin American context, structural restrictions, asymmetries,

limited resources, and models that can drift toward competition or privatization are

noted when cooperation is reduced to visibility, reinforcing the need for stable links

and active networks as a condition for institutional practice (Gacel-Ávila et al., 2024;

Labraña Vargas & Brunner, 2020; De Giusti, 2025).

In parallel, outreach and societal engagement appear as a space where the

public legitimacy of the university is validated by connecting academic capacities

with social, productive, and community problems (Verdezoto Reinoso et al., 2025).

Territorially focused models agree that impact requires continuity, defined actors,

coordination, and follow-up; in operational terms, it requires a network. Evidence

shows that environmental needs guide priorities and strengthen extension when it is

structured as a process with a trajectory (López & Obregón, 2025a, 2025b), and that

research gains social traction when a framework exists that connects knowledge,

decisions, and application settings (Maldonado Moreno & Obregón, 2025).

This logic is confirmed in the transfer from postgraduate programs, where

the university-society link is recognized as a condition for results to circulate and

translate into social and educational value (Ayala & Rivas-Martínez, 2026). In this

axis, networks operate as a bridge that stabilizes cooperation through task

coordination, the circulation of repertoires, and shared production (Román-Cao et

al., 2025), in addition to sustaining faculty motivation and interaction in virtual

environments (Román Acosta & Rodríguez Torres, 2024).

An "outside-in" approach reinforces that internationalization gains legitimacy

when oriented toward social contributions, shifting attention toward public value

and institutional responsibility (Cai & Leask, 2026), with instrumental supports for

translating cooperation into plans and decisions (Herrera Timana, 2022). Finally,

external projection is linked to responsibility and coexistence, where university

action is validated by its impact on community life through sustained relationships

(Insuasty Rodríguez & Espinosa Menéndez, 2024; Alcaraz-Herrera et al., 2023; López

Morales et al., 2020; Vorontsova et al., 2023).

Strategic implications for university management

The reviewed literature converges on an uncomfortable but clarifying

warning: an academic network does not sustain itself by inertia. It is sustained when

the institution decides to govern it, assigns responsibilities, protects collaboration

time, and translates cooperation into verifiable products. This emphasis shifts the

conversation from celebrating connections to a question of strategic direction: what

decisions convert dispersed links into institutional capacity? In this line, studies on

quality and internationalization situate internal coherence as a decisive factor;

cooperation gains value when it is integrated into processes and standards, when it

becomes traceable, evaluable, and useful for institutional improvement (Fliguer et

al., 2025; Becerra et al., 2024).

A first set of implications relates to leadership and governance. Approaches

to distributed leadership highlight the need to broaden the scope of leadership and

prevent continuity from depending on a single authority. This approach encourages

creating organizational arrangements where coordination is shared, roles are

clarified, and decision-making becomes more horizontal (Cuenca, 2025; Ahumada

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Figueroa et al., 2023).

In parallel, transformational leadership appears associated with innovation

and the mobilization of the academic community, with effects on the willingness to

collaborate, sustain changes, and convert initiatives into institutional practices

(Muñoz-Chávez et al., 2022; Pallango Espín et al., 2025). The management

implication is direct: strengthening networks requires leadership, simple rules,

coherent incentives, and a culture that legitimizes collaborative work.

A second set of implications emerges when analyzing the management of

alliances and agreements. Analyses of agreements show that the document itself

does not guarantee activation; the problem centers on follow-up, continuity, and

alignment with institutional priorities (Barquero Morales et al., 2024). The literature

on alliances for development proposes criteria that help differentiate formal

cooperation from operational partnerships: shared objectives, coordination,

resources, evaluation mechanisms, and mutual learning (Rodríguez Cotilla, 2023;

Paletta, 2024).

In practice, this approach invites a strategic decision often postponed:

prioritizing partnerships, closing agreements that produce no activity, and

concentrating resources on relationships that do generate academic and social

results. The notion of circular cooperation reinforces this agenda by placing

reciprocity and shared responsibility as attributes that increase sustainability and

legitimacy (Glennie, 2025).

A third set of implications appears in the operationalization of results. The

literature on societal engagement and territorial models suggests that cooperation

gains meaning when expressed in products recognized by the environment: projects

with external actors, transfer, situated training, continuity of community work, and

evidence of impact (Verdezoto Reinoso et al., 2025; López & Obregón, 2025a).

At the research and postgraduate level, the discussion on transfer reinforces

that the university-society link requires stable mechanisms that translate academic

results into practices and decisions for use (Ayala & Rivas-Martínez, 2026). This

evidence feeds a useful criterion for university management: evaluating networks by

the volume of agreements produces an illusion of cooperation; evaluating networks

by products and continuity reveals their real capacity.

A fourth set of implications relates to digital infrastructure and its

governance. Digital transformation presents opportunities for coordinating

distributed collaboration, though it also introduces frictions: overload, acceleration,

platform dependency, and the reorganization of academic time (Ramos-Zaga, 2024).

The discussion on platformization alerts that collaboration risks fragmentation and

loss of depth when adjusted to logics of immediacy and performance, affecting the

stability of academic ties (Jiménez & González, 2026).

Added to this is the debate on artificial intelligence: comparative regulation

shows that technological adoption demands frameworks of transparency,

accountability, and responsibility (Pérez-Ugena Coromina, 2024), while studies on

algorithmic bias warn that digital mediation can reproduce inequalities if

incorporated without critical oversight and an inclusion focus (Peña-García et al.,

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

2026). The strategic implication is clear: the digital support of academic networks

requires rules, protection of time, ethical criteria, and risk assessment.

University cooperation is navigating a paradoxical scenario: institutional

connectivity and the visibility of networks and alliances are increasing, while the

conversion of these ties into installed capacity remains uneven. The reviewed

literature tends to celebrate the expansion of connections as a sign of

modernization, yet offers less clarity on the conditions that convert interaction into

continuity, verifiable academic products, and territorial impact. This analytical

asymmetry explains why certain contributions remain at a descriptive level: the

"existence of networks" is reported with little discrimination regarding relational

density, reciprocity, governance, and the quality of the link. In this sense, the

relevant debate for university management is no longer about expanding contacts;

it is about building mechanisms that stabilize cooperation, with measurable effects

on quality, research, relevance, and strategic coherence (Fliguer et al., 2025;

Becerra et al., 2024).

In internationalization, the literature converges on the idea that its

effectiveness depends on integration with substantive processes, particularly

curriculum, research, and quality assurance. Works on internationalization of the

curriculum and mobility show value when institutional coherence and formative

consistency exist (Álvarez-Salgado et al., 2024), while quality analyses place

internationalization within a logic of improvement with standards and evaluation

(Fliguer et al., 2025). The contrast appears when observing regional approaches:

comparative views in Latin America warn of risks of drifting toward competition,

privatization, or "visibility" disconnected from substantive cooperation (Gacel-Ávila

et al., 2024; Labraña Vargas & Brunner, 2020; De Giusti, 2025). This point

necessitates a critical reading: part of the literature confuses internationalization

with reputational outcomes, while another part insists on criteria of verifiable

cooperation. The "outside-in" approach further stresses the field by shifting

legitimacy toward social contributions, which demands networks capable of

producing public value and not merely academic circulation (Cai & Leask, 2026).

In outreach and territorial engagement, the literature provides a criterion

that serves as a practical test of cooperation: continuity with external actors,

coordination, and outcomes recognizable in the territory. Engagement studies

highlight its relationship with relevance and positioning, warning that the link

weakens when reduced to episodic actions (Verdezoto Reinoso et al., 2025).

Territorial models agree that impact requires a relational architecture: defined

actors, follow-up mechanisms, and translation of knowledge into settings of use

(López & Obregón, 2025a, 2025b; Maldonado Moreno & Obregón, 2025).

The review on transfer in postgraduate programs reinforces this argument

by situating the university-society link as a condition for results to circulate and

become applicable capacities (Ayala & Rivas-Martínez, 2026). Overall, the literature

suggests that networks and territorial impact connect when project governance,

continuity, and verifiable products exist. This evidence also reveals a gap: the

importance of engagement is widely discussed, yet criteria for evaluating whether a

network truly sustained transfer or merely accompanied activities are less

operationalized.

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

The field of alliances and governance introduces a second critical contrast.

Several studies show that a signed agreement does not activate cooperation by itself;

the decisive factor lies in follow-up, resources, shared objectives, evaluation rules,

and institutional learning (Rodríguez Cotilla, 2023; Paletta, 2024; Barquero Morales

et al., 2024). This finding questions metrics based on the volume of partners or

number of agreements and pushes toward portfolio decisions: prioritizing

partnerships, purging nominal links, and concentrating efforts on relationships with

products and continuity. Circular cooperation adds a further requirement of

legitimacy: reciprocity and shared responsibility, especially relevant when

asymmetries erode cooperation (Glennie, 2025). In practice, this literature forces

the recognition that a network is not managed by the number of nodes; it is managed

by coordination capacity and generated value.

The technological dimension deepens the debate and helps explain why some

networks become fragile. Digital transformation expands possibilities for distributed

coordination, though it alters academic time, expectations, and modes of

interaction (Ramos-Zaga, 2024; Sánchez Arreaga et al., 2025). Platformization

introduces additional frictions: acceleration, loss of collaborative depth,

productivity pressures, and the erosion of cooperation (Jiménez & González, 2026).

The artificial intelligence component introduces a governance layer: comparative

regulation, transparency, and accountability, along with risks of biases and inequity

in technology-mediated decisions (Pérez-Ugena Coromina, 2024; Peña-García et al.,

2026). This literature leads to an operational implication: sustainable networks

require usage rules, protected time, technical support, and ethical criteria to

preserve trust and continuity.

Based on the reviewed corpus, the manuscript proposes an integrative lens

to resolve the concern about concept "diffusion": epistemic utility is defined as the

cognitive-practical value attributed to exchanges within a network when it guides

criteria, reduces uncertainty, and converts interaction into verifiable capacities and

products. Its operationalization is proposed through observable dimensions that

allow moving from the concept to evidence: criterion guidance (justifiable decisions

on a problem, method, or strategy), uncertainty reduction (decrease in rework,

clarification of next steps), access to repertoires (literature, frameworks,

methodological pathways, pertinent contacts), translation of tacit knowledge

(improvements in writing, argumentation, responses to evaluation), agency and

continuity (persistence of participation, assumption of roles, sustaining of projects),

and conversion into products (projects, co-authorships, training materials,

engagement actions, transfer).

Regarding limitations, the narrative design prioritizes conceptual integration

over exhaustiveness, so the corpus does not claim to represent the totality of global

production. The coverage is restricted to SciELO, Redalyc, and Dialnet, with

expected biases of availability and open access, in addition to a limited time

window. The heterogeneity of included designs (reviews, empirical studies, cases)

conditions the type of inferences and demands caution when generalizing across

institutions with different capacities. These limitations open a research agenda

applicable to other investigative contexts: comparative case studies on active

networks, qualitative evaluation of generated value using epistemic utility

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

indicators, analysis of alliance governance, and studies on the effects of platforms

and artificial intelligence on collaborative continuity (Ayala & Rivas-Martínez, 2026;

Pérez-Ugena Coromina, 2024).

Conclusions

Academic networks have evolved into coordination infrastructure for

universities, with their value observable through continuity, work organization, and

verifiable products. Their sustainability is associated with distributed governance,

leadership, institutional support, and digital infrastructure governed by clear rules.

These networks facilitate the articulation between internationalization and

outreach/engagement by connecting academic cooperation with external actors,

projects with follow-up, and transfer. It is proposed that networks be managed by

the value they generate, using the lens of epistemic utility, which is the cognitive-

practical value that guides criteria, reduces uncertainty, and converts interaction

into results, thus guiding alliance prioritization, incentives, evaluation, and impact.

References

Ahumada Figueroa, L., Castro Castro, S., Maureira Cabrera, O., & Pino-Yancovic, M.

(2023). Prácticas de liderazgo distribuido en formación técnico profesional:

Nuevas formas de aprender, enseñar y trabajar. Psicoperspectivas, 22(3).

https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol22-Issue3-fulltext-2949

Alcaraz-Herrera, M. M., Zapata-Restrepo, S. A., & Morales-Palacio, L. L. (2023). La

cátedra de la paz: Una apuesta por la vida y la convivencia en las

instituciones de Educación Superior. Revista Eleuthera, 25(1), 75–94.

https://doi.org/10.17151/eleu.2023.25.1.5

Álvarez-Salgado, F. Á., Cruz-Doriano, S., Chi-Chan, M. T. D. J., & López-Ponce, M.

E. (2024). Explorando la excelencia educativa: La interacción de la

internacionalización del currículo y la movilidad académica. RIDE. Revista

Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 15(29).

https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v15i29.2167

Ayala, A. M. C., & Rivas-Martínez, G. I. (2026). Transferencia de resultados de

investigación en posgrados: Una revisión sistemática desde el vínculo

universidad-sociedad. Educación, Arte, Comunicación: Revista Académica e

Investigativa, 15(1), 132–158. https://doi.org/10.54753/eac.v15i1.2525

Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—A scale for the quality

assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review,

4, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8

Barquero Morales, W. G., Martínez Vargas, K. V., & Leytón Sevilla, J. (2024).

Perspectivas de la UNAN-Managua en el ámbito de cooperación universitaria:

Análisis de convenios 2020-2022. Revista Torreón Universitario, 13(38), 6–

18. https://doi.org/10.5377/rtu.v13i38.19355

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Becerra, A., Peña, J., Rangel, J., Solis, D., Torres, V., & Sierra, H. M. (2024).

Internacionalización y acreditación en la educación superior: Modelos,

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

estrategias e impacto. Revista Semilla Científica, (6), 504–516.

https://doi.org/10.37594/sc.v1i6.1601

Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science of science and reflexivity. University of Chicago Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

Cai, Y., & Leask, B. (2026). Rethinking internationalization of higher education for

society from an outside-in perspective. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 19(2),

509–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2406093

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Blackwell. (Original

work published 1996).

Cuenca, R. (2025). Liderazgo distribuido en la educación en América Latina:

Gobernanza. Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos.

https://doi.org/10.54676/NEHD3600

Day, M. (2019). El concepto de red en Manuel Castells y Bruno Latour. RevIISE:

Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, 13(13), 69–76.

https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5535/553565464005/html/

De Giusti, A. (2025). La internacionalización de la educación superior en América

Latina: Una visión comparada intrarregional. TE & ET: Revista

Iberoamericana de Tecnología en Educación y Educación en Tecnología, (40),

e11. https://doi.org/10.24215/18509959.40.e11

De Wit, H. (2024). Internationalization in and of higher education: Critical reflections

on its conceptual evolution. En Internationalization in Higher Education and

Research: Perspectives, Obstacles, Alternatives (pp. 17–31). Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_2

Felipe García, L. (2022). La educación superior ante la globalización. Revista

Publicando, 9(34), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.51528/rp.vol9.id2317

Fliguer, J. L., de Medeiros Pinheiro, J. A., & de Sousa, A. G. (2025). Tendencias en

internacionalización y aseguramiento de la calidad interna y externa.

Prohominum, 7(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.47606/ACVEN/PH0333

Flores Torres, J. L. (2020). La sociedad y la comunicación desde la perspectiva de

Manuel Castells de sociedad red. Sintaxis, (5), 85–102.

http://dx.doi.org/10.36105/stx.2020n5.05

Gacel-Ávila, J., Villalón-de-la-Isla, E. M., & Vázquez-Niño, G. (2024). La

internacionalización de la educación superior en América Latina: Una visión

comparada. Revista Educación Superior y Sociedad (ESS), 36(1), 310–334.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8843968

García, R. E., Fuentes, J. R. A., Mursulí, F. V., & Madrigal, A. I. M. (2018). Liderazgo

transformacional en la educación universitaria. Revista UNIANDES Episteme,

5(3), 210–224.

https://revista.uniandes.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/EPISTEME/article/view/10

Glennie, J. (2025). Cooperación circular: Alianzas internacionales en evolución para

el siglo XXI. Global Cooperation Institute.

https://globalcooperation.institute/wp-

content/uploads/2025/06/Cooperacion-circular-Alianzas-internacionales-

en-evolucion-para-el-siglo-XXI.pdf

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,

78(6), 1360–1380.

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/225469

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review

types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries

Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Herrera Timana, B. L. (2022). Estrategias y herramientas de gestión para la

internacionalización de la educación universitaria. PAIAN, 13, 110–124. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26495/rcp.v13i1.2302

Insuasty Rodríguez, A., & Espinosa Menéndez, N. (2024). La construcción de paz

como cuarta función sustantiva: Una posible transformación del rol de las

universidades colombianas. El Ágora USB, 24(2), 364–387.

https://doi.org/10.21500/16578031.7354

Jiménez, J., & González, E. O. (2026). The Uberisation of Higher Education:

Reclaiming space and time for study in the platform era. Digital Education

Review, (48), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2026.48.143-156

Knight, J. (2003). Internacionalización de la educación superior (Capítulo 1).

Universidad de Guanajuato.

https://www.ugto.mx/internacional/images/pdf/4a.pdf

Knight, J. (2005). Un modelo de internacionalización: Respuesta a nuevas realidades

y retos. En Educación superior en América Latina: La dimensión

internacional (pp. 1–

38). OECD.

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/es/publications/reports/2006/

02/higher-education-in-latin-america_g1gh66d5/9789264065475-

es.pdf#page=28

Labraña Vargas, J. R., & Brunner, J. J. (2020). Internacionalización en una cultura

global: El caso chileno y la lógica de privatización en la educación superior.

En Políticas públicas para la internacionalización de la educación superior

en América Latina (pp. 17–37). Iberoamericana; Vervuert.

https://publications.iai.spk-

berlin.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/iai_derivate_00000590/BIA_178_La

bra%C3%B1a%20Vargas_Brunner.pdf

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-

theory. Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation. Cambridge University Press.

López Morales, J. S., Pérez León, L. N., Zarrabal Gutiérrez, C. G., & Andrade

Estrada, M. G. (2020). Responsabilidad social e internacionalización: Un

análisis de la misión y la visión de los principales puertos en América Latina.

Revista de El Colegio de San Luis, 10(21).

https://doi.org/10.21696/rcsl102120201231

López, L. del C., & Obregón, N. del C. (2025a). Necesidades y potencialidades del

desarrollo territorial en zonas de influencia universitaria: El caso de la

Universidad Politécnica de Honduras. Actas Iberoamericanas en Ciencias

Sociales, 3(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.69821/AICIS.v3i2.106

López, L. del C., & Obregón, N. del C. (2025b). University extension model with a

territorial focus: A proposal based on the case of the Polytechnic University

of Honduras. Pedagogical Constellations, 4(2), 318–340.

https://doi.org/10.69821/constellations.v4i2.96

Maldonado Moreno, G. E., & Obregón, N. del C. (2025). University research model

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

linked to territorial development: Proposal from the Polytechnic University

of Honduras. Pedagogical Constellations, 4(1), 349-

375. https://doi.org/10.69821/constellations.v4i1.103

Miranda-Zea, A., & de León, O. G. P. (2019). Las redes de colaboración científica y

su papel en la transferencia tecnológica en universidades públicas

mexicanas. Educación y Sociedad, 17(2), 69–83.

https://revistas.unica.cu/index.php/edusoc/article/view/1353

Muñoz-Chávez, J. P., Valle-Cruz, D., Barrios-Quiroz, H., & García-Contreras, R.

(2022). Hacia el liderazgo transformacional en la educación superior:

Competencias para responder a la crisis del COVID-19. Ciencia y Sociedad,

47(2), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.22206/cys.2022.v47i2.pp21-40

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow,

C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R.,

Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder,

E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020

statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372,

n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Paletta, F. C. (2024). Alianzas internacionales para el progreso global: Desafíos,

oportunidades y estratégias de colaboración. Vestigium, (2), 107–118.

https://p3.usal.edu.ar/index.php/vestigium/article/view/7562/9957

Pallango Espín, M. M., Pallango Espín, R. M., Núñez Betún, T. M., & Lascano Porras,

M. del P. (2025). El liderazgo transformacional como motor de innovación en

las instituciones educativas: Retos y oportunidades en el siglo XXI. Ciencia y

Educación, 6(9.2), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17232367

Peña-García, P., Jaime-de-Aza, M., & Feltrero, R. (2026). Dialogic reflection and

algorithmic bias: Pathways toward inclusive AI in education. Trends in Higher

Education, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu5010009

Pérez-Ugena Coromina, M. (2024). Análisis comparado de los distintos enfoques

regulatorios de la inteligencia artificial en la Unión Europea, EE. UU., China

e Iberoamérica. Anuario Iberoamericano de Justicia Constitucional, 28(1),

129–156. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/aijc.28.05

Perines, H., & Roman-Acosta, D. (2026). Factores que facilitan y dificultan la

investigación educativa en la práctica docente: Una revisión sistemática.

Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 30(1), 1–

23. https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/profesorado/article/view/32544

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Doubleday.

Ramos-Zaga, F. (2024). Transformación digital en las instituciones de educación

superior: Retos, estrategias y perspectivas para el siglo XXI. Punto Cero,

29(48), 42–52.

http://www.scielo.org.bo/scielo.php?pid=S1815-

02762024000100042&script=sci_arttext

Rodríguez Cotilla, M. (2023). Trazando nuevas rutas en común: Un estado del arte

de las alianzas para el desarrollo sostenible. Innovar, 33(88), 37–50.

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0121-

50512023000200037&script=sci_arttext

Roman-Acosta, D. (2025). Utilidad epistémica como principio organizador de redes

académicas abiertas. Revista Dominicana De Ciencias De La Educación, 2(1),

10-18. https://revista.idoce.edu.do/index.php/ReDoCiE/article/view/19

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

e9143

Román Acosta, D., & Rodríguez Torres, E. (2024). Redes académicas: Impulso

motivacional para docentes universitarios a través de entornos virtuales.

Yachay-Revista Científico Cultural, 13(2), 113–123.

https://doi.org/10.36881/yachay.v13i2.952

Román-Cao, E., Tapia-Ruelas, C. S., Aurelia-Franzante, B., & Sotomayor-Soloaga, P.

(2025). La colaboración científica como núcleo de las redes de investigación

en educación: Una revisión narrativa. HOMERO, 1(3), 161–172.

https://doi.org/10.64492/5qdydz35

Sánchez Arreaga, M. F., Troya Zurita, G. E., Soto Romero, T. M., & Crespo Castillo,

O. S. (2025). Transformaciones pedagógicas en la era digital: Retos y

oportunidades de la educación híbrida. Ciencia y Educación, 6(9.2), 78–91.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17188860

Sánchez-Pástor, F. M. (2024). Educación compleja y transformación educativa

universitaria. Cognopolis. Revista de Educación y Pedagogía, 2(3), 63–76.

https://doi.org/10.62574/m3s20317

Valdés, M. P., Rodríguez, A. M., Santana, Y. D., & Ruano, C. E. (2026).

Internacionalización de la educación superior: Miradas. Un breve

acercamiento desde las ciencias de la información. Revista Cubana de

Educación Superior, 45. https://revistas.uh.cu/rces/article/view/12485

Verdezoto Reinoso, M. D. R., Peralta Mocha, M. B., Ramón Guanuche, R. E., &

Jaramillo Paredes, M. F. (2025). Vinculación con la sociedad en el

posicionamiento competitivo de las universidades: Revisión y perspectivas.

Revista Uniandes Episteme, 12(3), 406–434.

https://doi.org/10.61154/rue.v12i3.3719

Vorontsova, L., Nikitina, E., & Mullayanov, A. (2023). Universidad innovadora de

Kazan: Internacionalización de la educación y responsabilidad social. Revista

de Gestión del Conocimiento y el Desarrollo Local, 10(3).

https://revistas.unah.edu.cu/index.php/RGCDL/article/view/1928

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge University Press.

| Daniel Roman-Acosta | Yanet Domínguez Albear |

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

About the main author

Daniel Roman

-Acosta:

A doctoral candidate in Educational Sciences at the

Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador (UPEL), he holds a Master’s degree

in Educational Innovations from the same institution and a degree in Sociology from

the Universidad del Zulia. Currently, he serves as the Director of the Platform for

Social Action, Management, and Research (PLAGCIS), in addition to working as an

educator, researcher, and consultant. He has led projects focused on academic

networks and virtual learning environments, distinguished by his prolific research

output regarding the ethical and technical application of emerging technologies in

higher education.

Declaration of author responsibility

Daniel Roman

-Acosta 1: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal

analysis,

Research, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation/Verification,

Visualization, Writing/original draft and Writing, review and editing.

Yanet Domínguez Albear 2:

Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation,

Resources, Software,

Supervision, Validation/Verification, Visualization, Writing

—

Original Draft, and Writing

—Review & Editing.

Financing:

Own resources.

Special Acknowledgments: