Equal Work, Unequal Recognition in Science: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis Protocol on Gender Disparities in Authorship and Other Domains of Scholarly Contributions Across Scientific Disciplines

<title>Abstract</title> <p>Background Scientific contribution does not always equitably reflect scientific credit. Recent studies suggest disparities in authorship attribution, citations, grant outcomes, awards, conference visibility, and hiring-related evaluation; however, current evidence remains fragmented across domains and scientific disciplines. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence on gender disparities in authorship and other domains of scholarly contributions across various scientific disciplines. Methods Empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2025, will be eligible if they report gender-disaggregated findings on authorship or other credit-related domains within the scientific disciplines of interest. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen, critically appraise, and extract data. Random-effects meta-analysis will be undertaken only when at least three studies report sufficiently comparable effect measures; otherwise, quantitative findings will be synthesized narratively. Qualitative studies will be analyzed using thematic analysis. Discussion This review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on gender disparities in scientific credit allocation across disciplines, identifying patterns, gaps, and potential mechanisms underlying unequal recognition of scholarly contributions. Findings may inform policies and interventions aimed at promoting equity in academic evaluation and recognition systems. Systematic review registration: Registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261411308).</p>