IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v86y2011i2d10.1007_s11192-010-0232-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the ease of scientific discovery

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Arbesman

    (Harvard Medical School
    Harvard University)

Abstract

It has long been known that scientific output proceeds on an exponential increase, or more properly, a logistic growth curve. The interplay between effort and discovery is clear, and the nature of the functional form has been thought to be due to many changes in the scientific process over time. Here I show a quantitative method for examining the ease of scientific progress, another necessary component in understanding scientific discovery. Using examples from three different scientific disciplines—mammalian species, chemical elements, and minor planets—I find the ease of discovery to conform to an exponential decay. In addition, I show how the pace of scientific discovery can be best understood as the outcome of both scientific output and ease of discovery. A quantitative study of the ease of scientific discovery in the aggregate, such as done here, has the potential to provide a great deal of insight into both the nature of future discoveries and the technical processes behind discoveries in science.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Arbesman, 2011. "Quantifying the ease of scientific discovery," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 245-250, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:86:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0232-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0232-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0232-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-010-0232-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luís M. A. Bettencourt & David I. Kaiser & Jasleen Kaur & Carlos Castillo-Chávez & David E. Wojick, 2008. "Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 495-518, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell Funk, 2021. "The decline of disruptive science and technology," Papers 2106.11184, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    3. Chung-Souk Han, 2011. "On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 845-865, December.
    4. J. A. Tenreiro Machado & Alexandra M. S. F. Galhano & Juan J. Trujillo, 2014. "On development of fractional calculus during the last fifty years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 577-582, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jimi Adams & Ryan Light, 2014. "Mapping Interdisciplinary Fields: Efficiencies, Gaps and Redundancies in HIV/AIDS Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Srayan Datta & Eytan Adar, 2018. "A generative model for scientific concept hierarchies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Krzysztof Klincewicz, 2016. "The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: the case of graphene," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 319-345, January.
    4. Wang, Haiying & Wang, Jun & Small, Michael & Moore, Jack Murdoch, 2019. "Review mechanism promotes knowledge transmission in complex networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 340(C), pages 113-125.
    5. Timur Gareev & Irina Peker, 2023. "Quantity versus quality in publication activity: knowledge production at the regional level," Papers 2311.08830, arXiv.org.
    6. Roberto Lalli & Riaz Howey & Dirk Wintergrün, 2020. "The dynamics of collaboration networks and the history of general relativity, 1925–1970," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1129-1170, February.
    7. Hanning Guo & Scott Weingart & Katy Börner, 2011. "Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 421-435, October.
    8. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo & J. Sylvan Katz, 2018. "The power law relationship between citation impact and multi-authorship patterns in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 919-932, March.
    9. Wang, Haiying & Wang, Jun & Small, Michael, 2018. "Knowledge transmission model with differing initial transmission and retransmission process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 507(C), pages 478-488.
    10. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    11. Xiaoyu Liu & Alan L. Porter, 2020. "A 3-dimensional analysis for evaluating technology emergence indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 27-55, July.
    12. Simone Turchetti & Roberto Lalli, 2020. "Envisioning a “science diplomacy 2.0”: on data, global challenges, and multi-layered networks," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. J. J. Winnink & Robert J. W. Tijssen, 2015. "Early stage identification of breakthroughs at the interface of science and technology: lessons drawn from a landmark publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 113-134, January.
    14. Stanley D. Brunn, 2014. "Cyberspace Knowledge Gaps and Boundaries in Sustainability Science: Topics, Regions, Editorial Teams and Journals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-28, September.
    15. Winnink, J.J. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & van Raan, A.F.J., 2019. "Searching for new breakthroughs in science: How effective are computerised detection algorithms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 673-686.
    16. Ciro D. Esposito & Balazs Szatmari & Jonathan M. C. Sitruk & Nachoem M. Wijnberg, 2024. "Getting off to a good start: emerging academic fields and early-stage equity financing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1591-1613, April.
    17. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    18. John McLevey & Alexander V. Graham & Reid McIlroy-Young & Pierson Browne & Kathryn S. Plaisance, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 331-349, October.
    19. Johan Bollen & Herbert Van de Sompel & Aric Hagberg & Luis Bettencourt & Ryan Chute & Marko A Rodriguez & Lyudmila Balakireva, 2009. "Clickstream Data Yields High-Resolution Maps of Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-11, March.
    20. Xia Gao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Network model of knowledge diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 749-762, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:86:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0232-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.