The 2025 Ommundsen et al. bibliometric colophon study measures the share of colophons naming female scribes, not colophon frequency, and does not reference Kwakkel

colophonerik-kwakkelcodicologystatistical-codicologyunverified-quantverification

Ommundsen, Conti, Haaland, and Holst's 2025 paper in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications performs a bibliometric analysis of the Benedictine colophon catalogue (Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle, 23,774 entries) to estimate what share of medieval manuscripts were copied by women: "We use the Benedictine colophon catalogue with 23774 entries and find that 1.1% (dating from around 800 to 1626 CE) can be identified with certainty as having been copied by female scribes (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 1.2%)." That figure counts which colophons — within a catalogue of already-identified colophons — name a female scribe. It is not a count of what fraction of all medieval manuscripts contain a colophon at all, so it neither substantiates nor contradicts Erik Kwakkel's "about one in seven" colophon-frequency claim. A direct read of the paper's introduction, methodology, results, and reference list turned up no mention of Kwakkel, J.P. Gumbert, "one in seven," or any comparable colophon-frequency fraction. It remains, per question-verify-kwakkel-one-in-seven-colophon-figure-against-a-corpus, the clearest example in the literature of what a rigorous, citable, corpus-based colophon statistic looks like — just not one that answers this particular question.