Upon verification of the article and discussion with other researchers, we became concerned about the reproducibility of our results as we did not include information on a baseline date for the data collection. In this corrigendum, we seek to amend the article, adding this information and adjusting the data presented in the tables and figures to be accurate to this baseline. Those are minor changes, but they impact on the ability of a researcher to reproduce our results without consulting us. We apologize for any previous inconsistencies and hope this improves the correctness and completeness of this work.
The corrections to the original paper are detailed as follows:
On section 3, first paragraph, the sentence “The extraction was done on November 20, 2019.” was added. This informs the baseline date for the data collection, allowing the experiment to be reproduced by choosing the appropriate data from PATSTAT. In the previous version of the paper, some of the data was taken from a different date, as the study was refined over a few months, causing the final results to be difficult to reproduce precisely. For this reason, we fixed this date and ran all the calculations on this baseline. This caused small changes in the tables (1, 2, and 3) and in Figure 3, which are detailed in the next points.
In Table 1, the number of inventors and respective “Avg. women p/patent” and “Avg. women invt. ratio” changed for the following countries:
Also in Table 1, the “percent” column in Table 1 was mistakenly calculated using the entire set (150,863 patents) instead of the filtered set (103,914). We fixed that so the percent values now match correctly the patent numbers in the “# of patents” column.
The updated table is as follows:
Female involvement in patent applications with priority years (2007–2016) for which the applicant was resident in an iberoamerican1 country.
Country | #of patents | percent | #of inventors | Avg. women p/patent2 | Avg. women invt. ratio3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argentina (LA) | 2,019 | 1.9429 | 4,741 | 0.486 | 0.207 |
Bolivia (LA) | 16 | 0.0153 | 73 | 0.500 | 0.109 |
Brazil (LA) | 18,632 | 17.9302 | 28,099 | 0.352 | 0.233 |
Belize (LA) | 145 | 0.1395 | 26 | 0.062 | 0.360 |
Chile (LA) | 3,521 | 3.3883 | 5,180 | 0.348 | 0.237 |
Colombia (LA) | 1,547 | 1.4887 | 2,847 | 0.451 | 0.245 |
Costa Rica (LA) | 173 | 0.1664 | 689 | 0.358 | 0.090 |
Cuba (LA) | 1,018 | 0.9796 | 1,556 | 0.672 | 0.440 |
Dominican Republic (LA) | 76 | 0.0731 | 148 | 0.487 | 0.250 |
Ecuador (LA) | 365 | 0.3512 | 481 | 0.266 | 0.201 |
Spain (IB) | 63,128 | 60.7502 | 95,002 | 0.426 | 0.283 |
French Guyana (LA) | 1 | 0.0009 | 12 | 5.000 | 0.417 |
Guatemala (LA) | 18 | 0.0173 | 91 | 0.500 | 0.099 |
Honduras (LA) | 7 | 0.0067 | 35 | 1.571 | 0.314 |
Mexico (LA) | 6,569 | 6.3215 | 13,731 | 0.428 | 0.204 |
Nicaragua (LA) | 7 | 0.0067 | 36 | 0.143 | 0.028 |
Panama (LA) | 613 | 0.5899 | 302 | 0.132 | 0.268 |
Peru (LA) | 211 | 0.2030 | 484 | 0.588 | 0.256 |
Portugal (IB) | 5,242 | 5.0445 | 9,129 | 0.465 | 0.267 |
Paraguay (LA) | 23 | 0.0221 | 44 | 0.174 | 0.091 |
Suriname (LA) | 5 | 0.0048 | 10 | 0.600 | 0.300 |
Uruguay (LA) | 324 | 0.3117 | 649 | 0.346 | 0.172 |
Venezuela (LA) | 254 | 0.2444 | 791 | 0.779 | 0.250 |
Latin America (LA) | 35,544 | 34.2000 | 60,016 | 0.678 | 0.227 |
Iberian countries (LA) | 68,370 | 65.8000 | 104,131 | 0.446 | 0.275 |
Ibero-America (LA) | 103,914 | 100.0 | 164,156 | 0.658 | 0.232 |
Latin american countries are indicated with (LA) next to their names, and Iberian countries with (IB).
The Avg. women per patent shows the average number of women listed as inventors in each application.
The Avg. women inventor ratio shows the mean ratio of women=men inventors for the appications analyzed.
In Table 2, the numbers were truncated to the 3rd decimal place, and the number of inventors and respective “Avg. women p/patent” and “Avg. women invt. ratio” were changed as follows:
The updated table is as follows:
Female involvement by institutional sector in patent applications with priority years (2007–2016) for which the applicant was resident in an iberoamerican country. Note. The institutional sectors indicate the institutional origin or affiliation of the inventors. Only the applications pertaining to one of the four sectors: Company, Government, Individual, University, are listed in this table. Thus the total number of patents is different from Table 1. The sectorization methodology is descibed in previous PATSTAT research.Avg. women invt. ratio Sector #of patents percent #of inventors Avg. women p/patent Avg. women invt. ratio COMPANY 119,364 0.730 150,866 0.347 0.274 GOVERNMENT 12,991 0.079 21,126 0.679 0.418 INDIVIDUAL 6,453 0.039 6,421 0.194 0.193 UNIVERSITY 17,712 0.108 28,006 0.635 0.404
In Table 3 one row was changed as follows:
The updated table is as follows:
Ranking of Ibero American countries in female participation growth on patenting (2007–2016).Rank Country Avg. women invt. ratio 2007 2016 growth 1 Chile 0.199 0.308 0.108 2 Ecuador 0.062 0.154 0.091 3 Colombia 0.170 0.259 0.088 4 Portugal 0.228 0.302 0.074 5 Dominican Republic 0.437 0.500 0.062 6 Costa Rica 0.071 0.131 0.060 7 Mexico 0.165 0.206 0.040 8 Brazil 0.223 0.257 0.033 9 Spain 0.273 0.275 0.001
Figures 1 and 2 were not changed due to truncation of small numbers. The updated Figure 3 is as follows:
The online version of the original article can be found at