IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v14y2020i3s1751157719303724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender bias in patenting process

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Yukai
  • Yang, Zhongkai
  • Liu, Lanjian
  • Wang, Xianwen

Abstract

Collaboration among inventors is very important in patenting an invention. Inventors collaborate based on their professional knowledge and experience. Because of the non-disclosure nature of the invention process, it is difficult to test the factors influencing collaboration between inventors, e.g., gender bias. In this study, employing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dataset with 6.64 million patents, we have identified the gender of 4.66 million inventors, including 2.12 million lead inventors and 2.54 million joint inventors. We find that women are underrepresented in the patent collaboration process and that both genders have strong preference for same-gender inventors. Moreover, even in those fields that have equal proportions of male and female inventors, gender bias persists. These results highlight the need to intensify efforts to combat gender bias in the patenting process rather than focusing solely on the lack of equal gender representation in the numerical proportions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Yukai & Yang, Zhongkai & Liu, Lanjian & Wang, Xianwen, 2020. "Gender bias in patenting process," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:14:y:2020:i:3:s1751157719303724
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157719303724
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Homophily in MySpace," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(2), pages 219-231, February.
    2. Bramoullé, Yann & Currarini, Sergio & Jackson, Matthew O. & Pin, Paolo & Rogers, Brian W., 2012. "Homophily and long-run integration in social networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1754-1786.
    3. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    4. Frietsch, Rainer & Haller, Inna & Funken-Vrohlings, Melanie & Grupp, Hariolf, 2009. "Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 590-599, May.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    6. Aleksandra Cislak & Magdalena Formanowicz & Tamar Saguy, 2018. "Bias against research on gender bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 189-200, April.
    7. Xiao Han T Zeng & Jordi Duch & Marta Sales-Pardo & João A G Moreira & Filippo Radicchi & Haroldo V Ribeiro & Teresa K Woodruff & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2016. "Differences in Collaboration Patterns across Discipline, Career Stage, and Gender," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Jung, Taehyun & Ejermo, Olof, 2014. "Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: Gender, age, and education of inventors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 110-124.
    9. Sari Pekkala Kerr & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Global Collaborative Patents," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 235-272, July.
    10. Sidonia Proff & Anja Dettmann, 2013. "Inventor collaboration over distance: a comparison of academic and corporate patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1217-1238, March.
    11. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    12. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Makita, Meiko & Sud, Pardeep & Madalli, Devika P., 2019. "Gender and research publishing in India: Uniformly high inequality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 118-131.
    13. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Tobin, Catherine & Bradshaw, Noel-Ann, 2019. "Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 149-169.
    14. Sergio Currarini & Matthew O. Jackson & Paolo Pin, 2009. "An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities, and Segregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1003-1045, July.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 25-38.
    16. Cassidy R Sugimoto & Chaoqun Ni & Jevin D West & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "The Academic Advantage: Gender Disparities in Patenting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-10, May.
    17. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    18. Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, 2018. "“A tie is a tie? Gender and network positioning in life science inventor collaboration”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 511-526.
    19. Thelwall, Mike, 2017. "Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 128-151.
    20. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    21. Hunt, Jennifer & Garant, Jean-Philippe & Herman, Hannah & Munroe, David J., 2013. "Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 831-843.
    22. Miguelez, Ernest, 2019. "Collaborative patents and the mobility of knowledge workers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 62-74.
    23. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    24. Elba Mauleón & Laura Hillán & Luz Moreno & Isabel Gómez & María Bordons, 2013. "Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 87-114, April.
    25. Per Lunnemann & Mogens H. Jensen & Liselotte Jauffred, 2019. "Gender bias in Nobel prizes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-4, December.
    26. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    27. G. Steven McMillan, 2009. "Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 683-691, September.
    28. Eun Lee & Fariba Karimi & Claudia Wagner & Hang-Hyun Jo & Markus Strohmaier & Mirta Galesic, 2019. "Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 1078-1087, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caviggioli, Federico & Colombelli, Alessandra & Ravetti, Chiara, 2022. "Peers and stars: the role of gender among coinventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 202217, University of Turin.
    2. Sun, Zhuanlan & Liu, Sheng & Li, Yiwei & Ma, Chao, 2023. "Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domingo Sifontes & Rosa Morales, 2020. "Gender differences and patenting in Latin America: understanding female participation in commercial science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2009-2036, September.
    2. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    3. Jussi Heikkilä, 2019. "IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 869-883, March.
    4. Edoardo Ferrucci & Francesco Lissoni & Ernest Miguelez, 2020. "Coming from afar and picking a man’s job:Women immigrant inventors in the United States," Working Papers hal-03098102, HAL.
    5. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    6. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    7. Tanya Araújo & Elsa Fontainha, 2018. "Are scientific memes inherited differently from gendered authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 953-972, November.
    8. Mendonça, Joana & Reis, Anabela, 2020. "Exploring the mechanisms of gender effects in user innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    9. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Merouani, Youssouf & Perrin, Faustine, 2024. "Women Inventors: On the Origins of the Gender Patenting Gap," Lund Papers in Economic History 255, Lund University, Department of Economic History.
    11. Elodie Carpentier & Jennifer Brant & Utsav Bahl & Aikaterini Kanellia, 2024. "Closing Innovation and Intellectual Property Diversity Gaps: a Global Literature Review," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 86, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    12. Gema Lax Martínez & Julio Raffo & Kaori Saito, 2016. "Identifying the Gender of PCT inventors," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 33, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    13. Mojgan Samandar Ali Eshtehardi & Seyed Kamran Bagheri, 2015. "Gender Gap in Patenting Activities: Evidence from Iran," LEM Papers Series 2015/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Thamyres T. Choji & Manuel J. Cobo & Jose A. Moral-Munoz, 2024. "Is the scientific impact of the LIS themes gender-biased? A bibliometric analysis of the evolution, scientific impact, and relative contribution by gender from 2007 to 2022," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6023-6047, October.
    15. Mike Thelwall & Tamara Nevill, 2019. "No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1793-1801, December.
    16. Hamid R. Jamali & Alireza Abbasi, 2023. "Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2879-2893, May.
    17. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    18. Yu Meng, 2018. "Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 971-992, March.
    19. Paola Giuri & Rosa Grimaldi & Anna Kochenkova & Federico Munari & Laura Toschi, 2020. "The effects of university-level policies on women’s participation in academic patenting in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 122-150, February.
    20. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender bias; Patent; Inventor; USPTO;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:14:y:2020:i:3:s1751157719303724. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.