The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes
Open accessAbstract
Fourteen subjects were tape‐recorded while they undertook to find a law to summarize numerical data they were given. The source of the data was not identified, nor were the variables labeled semantically. Unknown to the subjects, the data were measurements of the distances of the planets from the sun and the periods of their revolutions about it—equivalent to the data used by Johannes Kepler to discover his third law of planetary motion. Four of the 14 subjects discovered the same law as Kepler did (the period varies as the 3/2 power of the distance), and a fifth came very close to the answer. The subiects' protocols provide a detailed picture of the problem‐solving searches they engaged in, which were mainly, but not exclusively, in the space of possible functions for fitting the data, and provide explanations as to why some succeeded and the others failed. The search heuristics used by the subjects are similar to those embodied in the BACON program, computer simulation of certain scientific discovery processes. The experiment demonstrates the feasibility of examining some of the processes of scientific discovery by recreating, in the laboratory, discovery situations of substantial historical relevance. It demonstrates also, that under conditions rather similar to those of the original discoverer, a law can be rediscovered by persons of ordinary intelligence (i.e., the intelligence needed for academic success in a good university). The data for the successful subjects reveal no “creative” processes in this kind of a discovery situation different from those that are regularly observed in all kinds of problem‐solving settings.
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
Cited by
Expert performance: its structure and acquisition.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.8.725 · Cited by 2,072
Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543068002179 · Cited by 1,593
The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400410409534549 · Cited by 1,132
Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005 · Cited by 678
Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings.
Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524 · Cited by 352
Metadata
- Authors
- Qin, Y.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 281-312
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149142612
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90005-h
- The paper
- Qin, Y. (1990). Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90005-h
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.