Creative accomplishments in science: Definition, theoretical considerations, examples from science history, and bibliometric findings

Scientometrics

Volumn 95, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 927-940

  Heinze, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Creativity; Heuristic; Originality; Philosophy of science; Research accomplishment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877611118     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0848-9     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12, 159-170.
2. Binnig, G., & Rohrer, H. (1982). Surface studies by scanning tunneling microscopy. Physical Review Letters, 49, 57-61.
3. Boden, M. A. (1999). Computer models of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 351-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library and Information Science Research, 32, 5-12.
5. Campanario, J. M. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited papers of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 47, 302-310.
6. Campanario, J. M. (2009). Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics, 81, 549-565.
7. Campanario, J. M., & Acedo, E. (2007). Rejecting highly cited papers: the views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 734-743.
8. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions. A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
9. Cole, S. (1970). Professional standing and the reception of scientific papers. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 286-306.
10. Cole, J. R. (2000). A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly Work. In B. Cronin, & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 281-300). Medford New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
11. Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. J. (1998). The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Erni, R., Rossell, M. D., Kisielowski, C., & Dahmen, U. (2009). Atomic-resolution imaging with a sub-50-pm electron probe. Physical Review Letters, 102, 96-101.
14. Felt, U., & Nowotny, H. (1992). Striking gold in the 1990s: the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity and its impact on the science system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 506-531.
15. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443-475.
16. Garfield, E. (1980). Premature discovery of delayed recognition-why? Current Contents, (21), 488-493.
17. Garfield, E. (1989). Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: citation frequency analysis aids the search for case histories. Current Contents, (23), 154-160.
18. Garfield, E. (1989). More delayed recognition. Part 1. Examples from the genetics of color blindness, the entropy of short-term memory, phosphoinositides, and polymer rheology. Current Contents, (38), 264-269.
19. Garfield, E. (1990). More delayed recognition. Part 2. From Inhibin to scanning electron microscopy. Current Contents, (9), 68-74.
20. Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H.-J. (1992). What are highly cited publications? A method applied to German scientific papers, 1980-1989. Research Evaluation, 2, 135-141.
21. Glänzel, W., Rinia, E. J., & Brocken, M. G. M. (1995). A bibliometric study of highly cited European physics papers in the 80s. Research Evaluation, 5, 113-122.
22. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58, 571-586.
23. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Heidelberger, M. (2003). Philosophy of science and politics. New York: Springer.
25. Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano S&T: productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70, 811-830.
26. Hessenbruch, A. (2004). Nanotechnology and the negotiation of novelty. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 135-144). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
27. Jansen, D. (1998). Hochtemperatursupraleitung - Herausforderungen für Forschung, Wirtschaft und Politik. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
28. Karlsson, E. B. (2000). The nobel-prize in Physics, 1901-2000. http://nobelprize. org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/karlsson/index. html. Accessed 31 Oct 2010.
29. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
31. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Lambert, L., & Mulvey, T. (1996). Ernst Ruska (1906-1988): inventor extraordinaire of the electron microscope: a memoir. Advances in imaging and electron physics, 95, 2-62.
33. Luhmann, N. (1992). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
34. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435-444.
35. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2009). Problems of citation analysis: a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1-12.
36. Marassi, R., & Nobili, F. (2009). Transmission electron microscopy. In K. Dyer, P. T. Moseley, Z. Ogumi, & D. A. J. Rand (Eds.), Encyclopedia of electrochemical power sources (pp. 769-789). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
37. Merton, R. K. (1968). The bearing of empirical research upon the development of sociological theory. American Sociological Review, 13, 505-515.
38. Merton, R. K., & Zuckerman, H. (1973). Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science. In R. K. Merton, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited and with an Introduction by Norman W. Storer (pp. 460-496). Glencoe: Free Press.
39. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
40. Mullis, K. B. (1998). Dancing naked in the mind field. New York: Vintage.
41. Mullis, K. B., Ferré, F., & Gibbs, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). The polymerase chain reaction. Boston: Birkhäuser.
42. Pennycook, S. J. (2005). Transmission Electron Microscopy. In G. F. Bassani, G. L. Liedl, & P. Wyder (Eds.), Encyclopedia of condensed matter physics (pp. 240-247): Elsevier: Amsterdam.
43. Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. with an introduction by Marjorie Grene. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
44. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
45. Potter, U. J., & Love, G. (2004). Transmission electron microscopy. In R. Robinson, P. Patel, & C. A. Batt (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food microbiology (pp. 1407-1418). San Diego: Academic Press.
46. Rabinow, P. (1996). Making PCR. A story of biotechnology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
47. Radder, H. (2003). The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
48. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
49. Ruska, E. (1986). The development of the electron microscope and of electron microscopy. Stockholm: Nobel Foundation.
50. Sengupta, I. N., & Henzler, R. G. (1991). Citedness and uncitedness of cancer articles. Scientometrics, 22, 283-296.
51. Shadish, W. R., Tolliver, D., Gray, M., & Sen Gupta, S. K. (1995). Author judgements about works they cite: three studies from psychology journals. Social Studies of Science, 25, 477-499.
52. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life. A Moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
53. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the airpump. Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54. Shinn, T., & Joerges, B. (2002). The transverse science and technology culture: dynamics and roles of research-technology. Social Science Information, 41(2), 207-251.
55. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in Science. Change, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227, 84-93.
58. Stent, G. S. (2002). Prematurity of Scientific Discovery. In E. Hook (Ed.), Prematurity in scientific discovery. on resistance and neglect (pp. 22-33). Berkeley: University of California Press.
59. Stern, R. E. (1990). Uncitedness in the biomedical literature. American Society for Information Science Journal, 41, 193-196.
60. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2004). Demographers and their journals: who remains uncited after ten years? Population and Development Review, 30(3), 489-506.
62. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59, 467-472.
63. Westmeyer, H. (2001). Kreativität: Eine relationale Sichtweise. In E. Stern & J. Guthe (Eds.), Perspektiven der Intelligenzforschung (pp. 233-249). Berlin: Pabst Science Publishers.
64. Westmeyer, H. (2009). Kreativität als relationales Konstrukt. In E. H. Witte & C. H. Cahl (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie der Kreativität und Innovation (pp. 11-26). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
65. White, H. D. (2004). Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal hoax: a study in citation identities. Scientometrics, 60, 93-120.
66. Williams, D., & Carter, B. (2010). Transmission electron microscopy. A textbook for materials science. Berlin: Springer.
67. Zuckerman, H. (1987). Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence. Scientometrics, 12, 329-338.