Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

UsingCitation Classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main sociological, philosophical and historical approaches only ascribe a relative importance to the role of chance, error, or accident in scientific progress. The literature on this topic tends to be anecdotal, sometimes hagiographic and rarely systematic. The main goal of this paper is to introduce a new approach to the study of serendipity in scientific discovery. This new approach is based in the study of highly cited papers obtained from theCitation Classics feature ofCurrent Contents. This paper re-examines 205Citation Classics commentaries from the 400 most-cited papers in the recent history of science. Authors of 17Citation Classics commentaries (8.3%) mention some kind of serendipity in performing the research reported in the highly cited paper. Commentaries are classified and discussed in detail. In addition, I have examinated the original papers identified above. In 5 from the original highly cited papers authors explained or gave enough hints on the way the serendipitous discovery was done.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. van Andel, Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: Origin, history, domains, traditions, appeareances, patterns and programmability,British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 45 (1994) 631–648, p. 631.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. M. Roberts,Serendipity, Wiley, New York, NY, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. F. Chalmers,What is this Thing Called Science?, University of Queensland Press, Queensland, Australia, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. S. Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1970, pp. 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Lightman, O. Gingerich, When do anomalies begin?,Science, 255 (1991) 690–695.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Op. cit. Note. 1, p 647.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Baggot, Serendipity and scientific progress,New Scientist, 1706 (1990) 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. K. Machold, Is Physics worth to teaching?,Science & Education, 1 (1992) 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Sneider, K. Kurlich, S. Pulos, A. Friedman, Learning to control variables with model rockets: A neo-piagetian study of learning in fields settings,Science Education, 68 (1984) 463–484.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. G. Priest, R. O. Lindsay New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving,British Journal of Psychology, 83 (1992) 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. O. Seglen, The skewness of science,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (1992) 628–638.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. H. Comroe, Retrospectroscope, Insights into Medical Discovery, Von Gehr Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1977, p. 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Brush, Should the history of science be, rated X?Science, 183 (1974) 1164–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. Reichenbach,Experience and Prediction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1938, pp. 6–7 and 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Op. cit note 13.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. C. Otero, Assimilation problems in tradicional representations of scientific knowledge,European Journal of Science Education, 7 (1985) 361–369.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Faraday,Experimental Researchers in Electricity, Dover, New York, NY, 2nd Ed. Vol 1. 1965, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. K. Merton, Priorities in scientific discovery,American Sociological Review, 22 (1975) 635–659, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. Barber, R. C. Fox, The case of the floppy-eared rabbits,American Journal of Sociology, 64, (1958) 128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  21. C. Loehle, A guide to increased creativity in research-inspiration or perspiration?,BioScience, 40 (1990) 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. N. Varney, Some Physics not in the Physical Review,Physics Today, 35 (1982) 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P. B. Medawar, Is the scientific paper a fraud?The Listener (1963) 377–378.

  24. B. Barber, R. C. Fox, The Sociology of Science, Free Press, New York, NY. 1962, p. 525.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Op. cit note 1 p. 639.

    Google Scholar 

  26. E. Garfield, Citation Classics — From Obliteration to Immortality - and the role of autobiography in reporting the realties behind high impact research,Current Contents, 45 (1993) 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. E. Garfield,Citation Classics: Four years of the human side of science,Current Contents, 22 (1981) 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Kohn,Fortune or Failure, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Taton,Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery, Science Editions, New York, NY, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  30. W. Cannon, Gains From Serendipity. In:The way of an investigator Hafner, New York, NY, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  31. G. Shapiro,A Skeleton in the Darkroom — Stories of Serendipity in Science. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Op. cit. note 1. p. 635.

    Google Scholar 

  33. B. Gatty Mishaps that mothered invention,Nation's Business, 75 (1987) 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  34. R. S. Root-Bernstein, Who discovers and who invents?Research and Technology Management, 32 (1989) 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  35. D. L. Anderson,The Discovery of the Electron, Van Nostrand. Princeton, VA, 1964. pag. 130.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Koestler, The Act of Creation. McMillan, New York, NY, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Op. cit. note 1 p. 634.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Op. cit. note 2.

    Google Scholar 

  39. B. F. Skinner, A Case Study in Scientific Method, In:S. Koch (Ed),Psychology: A Study of a Science, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Op. cit. note 1 p. 644.

    Google Scholar 

  41. A. Kantorovich,Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. M. Campanario, Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that area later highly cited,Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993) 342–362.

    Google Scholar 

  43. J. M. Campanario, Commentary on Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations,Science Communication, 16, (1995a) 304–325.

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. M. Campanario, Have Referees Rejected some of the Most-Cited Papers of all Times?Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 46 (1995b) In press.

  45. E. Garfield, The 100 most-cited papers and how we selectCitation Classics, Current Contents, 23 (1984) 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. E. Garfield, Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: citation frecuency analysis aids the search for case histories,Current Contents, 23 (1989) 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. E. Garfield, More delayed recognition. Part 2. From inhibin to scanning electron microscopy,Current Contents, 9 (1990a) 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Arbeiten deutscher Wissenschaftler, die weltweit am häufigsten zitiert wurden,Umschau, 84 (1984) 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  49. D. E. Chubin, A. L. Porter, A. Rossini,Citation Classics analysis: an approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 35 (1984) 360–368.

    Google Scholar 

  50. V. Cano, N. C. Lind, Citation life cycles of ten citation classics,Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  51. H. S. Astin,Citation Classics: Women's and men's perceptions of their contributions to science' In:H. Zuckerman,J. R. Cole,J. T. Bruer (Eds.)The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Anonymous, Foreword to theCitation Classics features ofCurrent Contents in every issue after 1991.

  53. E. Garfield, The most-cited papers of all times, SCI 1945–1988. Part 1A. The SCI top 100-Will the Lowry method ever be obliterated?Current Contents, 7 (1990c) 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E. Garfield, The most-cited papers of all times, SCI 1945–1988. Part 2. The second 100 Citation Classics,Current Contents, 26 (1990b) 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  55. E. Garfield, The most-cited papers of all times, SCI 1945–1988. Part 3. Another 100 from theCitation Classics hall of fame,Current Contents, 34 (1990d) 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  56. E. Garfield, The most-cited papers of all times, SCI 1945–1988. Part 4. The papers ranked 301–400,Current Contents, 21 (1991) 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Op. cit. note 1 p. 639.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Op. cit. note 1 pp. 640–643.

    Google Scholar 

  59. , p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  60. R. K. Merton,Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York, NY, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  61. M. Polanyi,Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1958, p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  62. R. S. Lenox, Education for the serendipitous discovery,Journal of Chemical Education, 62 (1985) 283–285.

    Google Scholar 

  63. J. B. Bavelas, Permiting Creativity in Science, In:D. N. Jackson, J. P. Rushton (Eds)Scientific Excellence, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987, p. 309.

    Google Scholar 

  64. .

    Google Scholar 

  65. , pp. 309–311.

    Google Scholar 

  66. A. Wróblewski, Chance, prejudice and reason in scientific investigation: a ramble through the history of physics,European Journal of Physics, 6 (1985) 116–123.

    Google Scholar 

  67. H. Small, Macro-level changes in the structure of co-citation clusters: 1983–1989,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  68. H. Small, E. Garfield, The geography of science: disciplinary and national mappings,Journal of Information Science, 11 (1985) 147–159.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grupo de Investigación en Aprendizaje de las Ciencias, Departamento de Física, Universidad de Alcalá, 28871 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, (Spain)

    J. M. Campanario

Authors
  1. J. M. Campanario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campanario, J.M. UsingCitation Classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery. Scientometrics 37, 3–24 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093482

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093482

Keywords

Search

Navigation