Abstract
Academic inbreeding and recruitment opacity present critical challenges to meritocracy, institutional mobility, and research governance in higher education systems globally. Despite widespread qualitative critiques, quantitative syntheses evaluating the exact degree to which internal candidates or connected candidates are favored remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes evidence on how institutional ties and recruitment opacity affect academic selection. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, searches across Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed identified 1,742 initial records of which 5 met inclusion criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis using STATA 17 revealed a pooled OR of 3.40 (95% CI: 2.45-4.72), demonstrating that internal candidates or candidates with personal/institutional connections to selection committee members are over three times more likely to be appointed or promoted compared to external applicants. Central, standardized selection committees moderate this advantage (OR= 3.02, 95% CI: 2.25-4.05), whereas decentralized local institutional recruitment exacerbates favoritism (OR= 3.72, 95% CI: 2.81-4.92). ROB 2 domain risk of bias assessments showed overall low-to-moderate bias across included studies. Funnel plot asymmetry indicates minor small-study effects, though Egger's test indicates robust overall estimates. Double-blind initial application screening, mandatory minimum 50% external committee representation, and enforced post-doctoral mobility are necessary to safeguard recruitment integrity and institutional academic output.