Introduction:
Academic integrity constitutes a foundational pillar in initial teacher education (ITE), not only as a curricular content area but also as a transversal ethical competency essential to the professional practice of future educators. In a context marked by easy access to digital information, increased academic pressure, and the widespread availability of technological tools, dishonest behaviors are taking on new forms and levels of complexity. Given this scenario, it is crucial to analyze how these behaviors are perceived by academic leaders in charge of ITE programs, as their perspectives directly influence institutional policy and the implementation of preventive strategies.

Objectives and Method:
The main objective of this study is to identify the perceptions of academic leaders regarding the prevalence, evolution, and severity of various dishonest academic behaviors, as well as the importance they assign to potential explanatory factors and institutional strategies for addressing them. The sample consisted of 198 academic leaders from Spanish universities (81.31% from public institutions), with a strong female representation (61.62%) and extensive professional experience. The data collection instrument was a validated questionnaire, distributed online between October and December 2024, achieving a high response rate of 85.7%. Statistical analyses were conducted using non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction) due to non-normal distribution patterns.

Results:
The analyses revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of several factors related to dishonest behavior. Participants who perceive an increase in these behaviors over time tend to assign greater importance to factors such as limited faculty engagement and weak institutional control. In contrast, those who view these behaviors as highly prevalent emphasize issues such as performance pressure and institutional permissiveness. Regarding institutional measures, respondents who consider dishonest conduct as more severe are more inclined to support formal and educational strategies. Additionally, those who identify a notable rise in such behaviors prioritize awareness-raising measures, such as specific faculty training.

Conclusions:
The perceptions of academic leaders reveal a strong correlation between how they assess the prevalence or evolution of dishonest behaviors and the importance they attribute to the underlying causes and intervention strategies. These findings highlight the need to reinforce institutional mechanisms for training, oversight, and the promotion of an ethical academic culture within ITE programs. Universities, as both formative and regulatory environments, bear the responsibility of fostering academic settings grounded in integrity, thereby preparing future educators who are ethically committed and capable of cultivating responsible and honest learning communities.

Acknowledgement:
Paper elaborated within the framework of the:
a) project PID2022-141031NB-I00, funded by MICIU/AEI /10.13039/501100011033/ and by ERDF A way of making Europe;
b) “Ibero-American Network of Research on Academic Integrity” funded by the AUIP (www.red-ia.org).

Keywords: Academic integrity, initial teacher training, ethics, misconduct.