Regarding the documentation selection process, it took the documents that met all the keywords proposed in the Boolean equation. The review, filtering of this documentation and analysis was done using the Mendeley literature manager Desktop version 1.19.8 and then exported the metadata of the publications obtained from the search were downloaded from the databases in Microsoft Excel format. For the underlying data, see Rivera-Lozada et al. (2023a). The phases of definition of the protocol, search and extraction of the initial data from the databases were carried out by all the authors of this publication. The search results are current as of the second week of May. The subsequent filtering of the successive phases was carried out by peer review among the authors.

Figure 2 contains the diagram of the process flow carried out to obtain our RBP. In the first instance, duplicate articles and articles that despite carrying out the search determining the interval of years, did not comply with this, are eliminated. Subsequently, those that contain the keywords in the title or in the abstract but any of both shows they are not related to the subject of study are excluded, such as the article “Analysis of the world scientific production on forced sterilization of women with disabilities between 1997 and 2016” ( Concha & Ferrer, 2019), our Keyword: scientific production and women or the article “Women and aging in social research (1950-2018)” ( Torralbo & Guizardi, 2020), our keywords: women and research. Then we obtained reports sought for retrieval but we do not have access to 40 of these, like the “Chapter 4 Gender and Economics in Latin America: a Systematic Analysis of Scientific Production in Scopus” ( Maldonado & Quiñonez, 2021) and finally, the articles are organized from highest to lowest citation ability and the articles that are outside the sample of 83 articles that were determined with the aforementioned formula are excluded.

The systematic review, like other study designs, can present biases that can lead to errors in the study, for which a series of measures were applied to guarantee the objectivity of the results, such as defining a search protocol with quality criteria, as well as searching the two main research databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, Redalyc, among others. Likewise, there were no spatial or language restrictions for the selection of information.

Figure 3 shows the number of articles from the RBP published in the period 2012-2022, as well as the number of highlighted articles from the RBP based on their citability, published within this time interval. It can be observed that the year 2014 marked a turning point in the decline of publications, reaching its peak in 2016, which also had the highest number of highlighted articles. However, this pattern does not repeat when considering the lowest number of published articles. For the RBP, the year with the lowest number of publications is 2014, while in terms of highlighted articles, the year with the fewest was 2021, where not a single article surpassed 10 citations.

Figure 3 highlights the articles from the RBP according to the journals where they were published. The list includes 32 journals that published the respective articles from the RBP, ordered according to the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index, which measures the prestige of the journals based on the citation count received by each publication. Notable journals such as BMJ Global Health, Journal of Technology Transfer, and Journal of English for Academic Purposes stand out with SJR indexes of 2.37, 1.70, and 1.32, respectively. There is a significant difference of 0.67 points between the first and second-ranked journals. However, the subsequent journals show a smaller decrease in their scores, as seen in the difference of 0.38 points between the second and third-ranked journals. The journal with the lowest index is Biblios, with 0.10 points.

Based on these prominent journals, the coverage years of the SJR index for the top 10 journals were identified, as shown in Table 5.

Furthermore, the year of the first publication on the gender gap in research was determined for the highlighted journals in the RBP, as shown in Table 6.

Along with the highlighted journals, information about the prominent authors in the RBP was also collected, selecting authors with the highest citability within the RBP, as shown in Figure 4. The figure compares the total number of publications of each author with the publications they have made related to the gender gap in research. Among these authors, Ana Pinho Gomes stands out with the highest number of total publications. Giovanni Abramo, Sanne Peters, and Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo also have a percentage of their total publications related to the topic of study, with 1%, 3%, and 4% respectively. In contrast, authors such as Pessoa de Carvalho, Ana Guil Bozal, and Alejandra Montané have a smaller number of publications but a higher involvement in the subject at hand, with 14%, 31%, and 8% respectively.

It is possible to identify the geographical areas where the studies on the gender gap in research included in the RBP were conducted, as shown in Figure 5.

Based on the information recorded in Figure 5, the evidence indicates that the country with the highest number of studies related to the gender gap in research was Mexico (29%), significantly surpassing other territories. Spanish publications ranked second (12%), followed by Colombian (8%), Argentinean (7%), Brazilian (7%), European (6%), Global Studies (6%), publications without a specific territory (5%), United States (4%), Chile (2%), and to a lesser extent, Venezuela, Turkey, Peru, Norway, Italy, Hungary, Honduras, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, and Africa (1% each). This provides the study with global perspectives.

In addition to the spatial focus, the classification of the RBP was incorporated according to the methodological approach of the studies, indicating that 42% were qualitative and 58% were quantitative.

The review made it possible to classify the potential determinants of scientific research: geographical location, position, dedication time, type of call, teaching classification or hierarchy, age, dependency load, inclusive financing funds, sexist bias, gender stereotypes, discrimination, institutional determinants, biases of evaluation committees, income, glass ceiling, scientific recognition or status, salary, motivations, sticky floor, labor contract, marital status, professional segregation, visibility of scientific production, among others.

The systemic analysis of the RBP allowed us to categorize the barriers contributing to the gender gap in research into four dimensions with their respective indicators: i) Academic Offerings: number of higher education institutions total number of careers, female and male enrolment, science careers, female and male enrolment in sciences (natural and social) ii) Research Policies: agency, call for proposals, inclusive funding, evaluation committee, institutional policy, discrimination, recognition or incentive, types of hiring, iii) Scientific Production: research category, publications number, patents, collaboration, segregation, citability, and iv) Researcher Profile: motivations, sticky floor, income, position, geographic location, education level, age, gender, marital status, dependency load, scale, acknowledgment.

i) Academic offerings: Ten percent of the RBP focused on explaining or analyzing gender gaps in research based on considerations that incorporate variables such as the number of educational institutions, professional careers offered, total enrolment, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers, and enrolment of women in natural sciences or STEM. In this regard, the results presented by López-Bassols et al. (2018) indicate that beyond acknowledging the existence of gender gaps in research, it is necessary to identify the areas or fields of knowledge where these gaps are most significant in order to correlate them with women’s participation and presence in higher education across various disciplines. Research conducted for Latin America and the Caribbean identifies family pressures, stereotypes, expectations, lack of mentors and role models, as well as vertical segregation and the “leaky pipeline” phenomenon as causal factors contributing to the existing differentials in women’s participation in research.

The authors propose considering three dimensions: actors within the national science and innovation system (higher education institutions, government, companies, NGOs), activities related to science and technology (teaching, research, publications, patents, funding, and innovative entrepreneurship), and obstacles or motivations (opportunities, attitudes, financial support, other incentives, role models, discrimination, and social biases). Based on the aforementioned, they establish a set of 16 indicators classified under higher education, careers in science and technology, scientific research, and innovation and innovative entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, the research conducted by García and Ortíz (2014) explores the individual and institutional determinants affecting gender gaps in scientific production in Ecuadorian universities. Using a linear regression model, they propose individual determinants that include academic degree, number of scholarship recipients, hours of dedication, age, and gender, as well as institutional determinants that incorporate the number of R&D projects, laboratories, executed budget for R&D, number of collaborators, among others. The research results indicate that institutional determinants have a significant and positive impact, while the number of PhDs still does not have a significant effect on scientific production. In particular, they find that women are less productive than men and that the age range with the highest productivity is between 30 and 39 years. Additionally, they found that the number of collaborators has a negative effect.

The UNESCO study on STEM education (2019) identifies four factors affecting gender gaps in research based on women’s participation in STEM education: individual factors (biological and psychological), family factors (parents’ beliefs, parents’ level of education, household socioeconomic status, and other characteristics), school factors (teaching staff, pedagogical strategies, teachers’ perceptions, interactions with students, textbooks, educational materials, curriculum, STEM equipment and resources, evaluation strategies and tools), and social factors (gender equality, social norms, policies and legislation, media and social communication).

The document debunks the belief in biological differences in the brains of men and women as an explanatory factor for their participation in STEM disciplines and research in this field. In this regard, neurological plasticity, understood as the brain’s ability to create new connections, is the essence of the learning process. The self-selection bias is the reason why girls and women decline STEM education, and this selection is influenced by stereotypes and androcentric biases acquired during upbringing and socialization moments. Similarly, social norms and stereotypes disseminated by the media have a significant impact on the internalization of gender roles, occupations, skills, and capabilities by girls and boys ( UNESCO, 2019).

Based on the literature review conducted, the indicators in the dimension of Academic Offerings are:. Based on our review of the literature, we identified the following indicators: number of higher education institutions, total number of offered careers, number of careers in science, total enrolment, total female enrolment, total male enrolment, enrolment of women and men in Natural Sciences, enrolment of male and female in Social Sciences, and enrolment of women and men in Health Sciences ( Carrillo & Florez, 2023; Del Valle et al., 2012; Ortiz-Ortega & Sánchez, 2017).

ii) Research policies: Twenty-nine percent of the RBP disseminated results regarding the impact of research policies on gender gaps in research. Mexico is the country where the highest number of studies in this field has been conducted, and thus, the equity of gender in research was evaluated in 2012, 2013, and 2015 ( Cárdenas Tapia, 2015). With a database that provided gender-specific information, knowledge area, SNI (National System of Researchers) classification, and public universities, it was possible to demonstrate that the participation of female researchers in Mexico is lower than that of men, and they also have a lower level in the SNI in all categories. In more detail, women are not the majority in any of the seven knowledge areas proposed by the SNI. Despite this, from highest to lowest, women are found in 1) biology and chemistry, 2) humanities and behavioural sciences, 3) social and economic sciences, 4) physics, mathematics, and earth sciences, and 5) engineering.

The results confirm the scissor effect or pyramid effect regarding women’s participation in science, as the number of women decreases as their professional career progresses. This situation demands effective policies that encourage and ensure greater presence and participation of women in scientific research in Mexico.

On the other hand, the research by González and Álvarez (2016) aimed to determine the factors that influence the achievement of efficient research formulation in Mexico through a descriptive-correlational study. With a sample of 42 researchers, they identified the following factors influencing the achievement of research formulation: development of analytical thinking, efficient database searching, management of research projects, efficient use of software, data analysis and modelling, innovation, and proper time management.

Pons-Peregort et al. (2013) analyzed gender equality of opportunities in science and technology to understand the career paths of female scientists in Spain. Using a mixed methodology, they identified that equality of opportunities in internal promotion, salary disparities, and work-life balance are challenges that can be overcome with research policies. The low presence of women in scientific professional careers is based on the hegemony of masculine values, which calls for rethinking the achievement of the critical mass needed to bring about structural transformations in the research field, estimated to be 35% ( Langford et al., 1995). The authors propose policies that support maternity, childcare services, tax deductions for women who stay at home to care for children because their absence perpetuates women’s inferior position in the labor market and keeps them away from the research field.

In this sense, the indicators that contribute to the definition of the dimension of research policies are entities proposing the policy (State, Ministries, Universities, NGOs), research calls, inclusive financing, composition of the evaluation committee, institutional university policy, incentives and/or recognition, organizational culture (discriminatory biases), types of contracts.

iii) Scientific production: Twenty-four percent of the RPB aims to study the gender gap in scientific production. Luna & Luna (2018) analyzed Mexico’s scientific production recorded in Web of Science from 1900 to 2000 in the fields of exact sciences and engineering to characterize the involvement of female researchers in these fields of study. As these areas have traditionally been associated with men, the research sought to highlight the breakthroughs and achievements of women, considering that they are not the majority in either field. The research used indicators in regard to gender, scientific production and impact, bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis.

The results showed that scientific production increased from the 1980s and 1990s, mainly due to increases in postgraduate studies, the consolidation of research groups, and an increase in national and international scientific collaborations ( Luna & Collazo, 2002). Scientific production is concentrated in five institutions and is led by UNAM, which has had female representation for 29 years. Additionally, the co-authorship network of research groups in the physical, chemical, mathematical, and engineering studies emerges in various specialties. The increase in scientific productivity is associated with the growth of female enrolment in higher education in natural sciences (47%) and engineering (25%) ( UNESCO, 2019), as well as the creation of new educational institutions since the 1960s and the emergence of women in traditionally male-dominated disciplines.

Continuing with Mexican research, Castro (2018) explores how a group of female researchers breaks paradigms and reshapes the line of women in scientific production. To achieve this, they incorporated qualitative-quantitative methods that included Participatory Action Research (PAR), Véster’s sensitive model, as well as validation indexes and indicators; monitoring and prospecting systems. This allowed them to conclude that women construct knowledge supported by a real and symbolic world.

García (2014) explores the situation of women in the research field in Mexico and discovers that difficulties arise in reconciling academic degrees with motherhood, publishing requires fulfilling the double workload, supervising degree projects requires time and mobility availability, lack of transparency in selection processes, and being evaluated by men negatively impact women’s research.

In Ecuador, Basurto and Ricaurte (2016) used a mixed study to examine the situation of women in the academic field of tourism. The results identified the low representation of women in teaching positions (53%) compared to the percentage of female students in tourism (75%), as well as male leadership in research from participating educational institutions, which are mostly organized by women. The explanatory factors found were difficulty reconciling research roles with motherhood, gender stereotypes, and the social perception of tourism as a feminine disciplinary field.

López and Farías (2022) propose a quantitative analysis of the temporal trajectories of gender parity in scientific publications in Colombia. The country ranks fifth in scientific productivity in Latin America and allocates 0.5% of its GDP to R+D ( MINCIENCIAS, 2020). English language proficiency is a disadvantage for Colombian researchers and is closely related to socioeconomic status. Similarly, gender stereotypes in the workplace negatively affect female researchers, leading the authors to assert that it is not simply about increasing the number of women in science and their scientific production, but rather reevaluating how science is done and valued in Colombia, which requires an inclusive and equitable ecosystem.

They highlight that the scientific areas with the highest number of female publications are medical sciences (37.76%), social sciences (35.51%), and natural sciences (29.09%).

Regarding gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, as studied by Sá et al. (2020), it was found that women in science in these countries are under-cited, underpaid, underpromoted, and receive less professional recognition compared to their male counterparts, which puts women at a disadvantage when considering the principle of cumulative advantage, indicating that greater recognition leads to more productivity. They identified factors such as differences in family responsibilities, different patterns in the use of time (women spend more time teaching, advising students, and participating in committees), unequal allocation of resources, gender bias in peer review, gender stratification in disciplines, as well as different patterns in academic collaboration and network building as explanatory factors for the low productivity of female researchers.

In an Italian study conducted by Abramo et al. (2013) using a bibliometric approach, they sought to identify academics’ propensity for collaboration, leading them to conclude that women demonstrate a greater capacity to collaborate in all the analysed forms (intramural, extramural, national, and international), except in international collaboration, where the gap with male counterparts persists.

Among the explanatory factors for productivity gaps in research compared to men, they found that the low percentage of female academics, discrimination affecting job opportunities, biases, difficulty accessing funding, and limitations due to family responsibilities negatively affect female researchers.

Pinho-Gomes et al. (2020) investigate the authorship of women in COVID-19 research by asking “where are the women?” The study shows that women are underrepresented in research, particularly in first and last author positions. These gender biases point to broader inequalities that include authorship in other scientific areas and senior authorship.

Based on the aforementioned, the indicators in the scientific production factor are the following researcher category, number of publications, number of patents, collaborative authorship, type of publication (scientific article, popular article, book chapter, book, collections), segregation (female collaborations), and citability.

iv) Profile. Thirty-seven percent of the RBP presented research results addressing the characteristics, motivations, uniqueness, and distinctive traits of researchers. In this perspective, Prieto de Alizo (2008) provides a theoretical approach to the characteristics of researchers in the humanities field using a phenomenological, hermeneutic, and ethnographic approach with successive interviews until theoretical saturation of categories is reached. The study conducted in Venezuela defined researchers as individuals with an active interest in understanding, learning, deconstructing, and constructing their reality. Beyond defining the characteristics of the group of researchers, the research made it possible to address two other fundamental aspects: the researchers’ conception of conducting research and the context in which research is carried out. This includes aspects such as institutional identification, the academic space where they work, the research-teaching relationship, the appreciation of the profession, administrative strategies in terms of institutional and state policies, as well as quality criteria.

In Spain, Dapía et al. (2019) explored whether science has a gender association among primary school students. Using a gender perspective analysis, they administered the PANA instrument (Project on Attitudes Toward Science in Children and Adolescents) by Pérez and Pro (2005) and the ROSE questionnaire ( Schreiner and Sjøberg, 2004) to 378 students. The investigation showed a weak association between gender and science, a more positive attitude towards science among boys, and no gender bias in the desire to become a scientist. This led to the conclusion that there is a need to improve knowledge about the contributions of science and that career aspirations to become scientists in primary education are not associated with gender.

Research conducted in Mexico by Carrillo and Flores (2023), aimed at describing the educational trajectory of women during their professional studies, surveyed 152 women scientists from the National System of Researchers (SNI) selected through non-probability sampling. The study aimed to identify obstacles, challenges, and experiences in the scientific field. Using descriptive quantitative methodology, they found that women face gender-related barriers such as invisibility, lack of recognition for scientific contributions, inequity, stereotypes associated with the care economy, dual burden of work, and difficulties in achieving work-life balance.

In the same vein, they identified variables associated with gender such as the choice of professional career, gender division of labour, sociocultural conditions, social valuation, stereotypes, and gender roles. Regarding the academic trajectory, the variables that influence it are discipline, postgraduate studies, periodic publications, difficulties in entering and advancing in the SNI (lower hierarchy, prolonged stagnation, institutional conditions, as well as symbolic and social gender aspects).

As a result, the main challenges faced by female researchers are related to bureaucracy, in terms of paperwork and procedures, the evaluation system based on quantity rather than quality, funding, lack of job security, competition in what they call the “wolf environment,” excessive workload due to lack of staff, and career advancement understood as continuous training and development processes.

Therefore, the selected indicators for the profile dimension are motivations, existence of a sticky floor, income level, position, geographic location, educational level, career, age, gender, marital status, dependent care burden, rank or category, and recognition.