The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist
Abstract
Psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, historians - and even scientists themselves - have often tried to decipher the basis for creativity in science. Some have attributed creativity to a special logic, the so-called scientific method, whereas others have pointed to the inspirations of genius or to the inevitable workings of the zeitgeist. Finally, some have viewed scientific breakthroughs as the product of chance, as witnessed in the numerous episodes of serendipity. Too often these four alternative interpretations are seen as mutually exclusive. Yet the central thesis of this book is that the chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist perspectives can be integrated into a single coherent theory of creativity in science. But for this integration to succeed, change must be elevated to the status of primary cause. Logic, genius and the zeitgeist still have significant roles to play but mainly operate insofar as they enhance, or constrain the operation of a chance combinatorial process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Holland, J. H. (1992) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66 · Cited by 5,764
The associative basis of the creative process.
Mednick, S. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0048850 · Cited by 4,140
The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change
Kuhn, T. S. (1977) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001 · Cited by 3,861
Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes
Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040373 · Cited by 2,329
Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.
Amabile, T. M. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 · Cited by 2,278
A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity
Feist, G. J. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5 · Cited by 2,180
Elements of a theory of human problem solving.
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0048495 · Cited by 1,380
Cited by
Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013688 · Cited by 2,669
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0350 · Cited by 659
The road to creative achievement: a latent variable model of ability and personality predictors
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1941 · Cited by 375
Expertise, Domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique
KAUFMAN, J. C., BAER, J., & COLE, J. C. (2009) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01316.x · Cited by 210
Humans as Creativity Gatekeepers: Are We Biased Against AI Creativity?
Magni, F., Park, J., & Chao, M. M. (2024) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09910-x · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Simonton, D. K.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2004-05-03
- OpenAlex
- W4211114405
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 13.32
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139165358
- The paper
- Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139165358
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
