Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Garfield’s demon and “surprising” or “unexpected” results in science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relative occurrence of the words “surprising” and “unexpected” in the titles of scientific papers was 11 times more common in 2001–2005 than in 1900–1955. However, papers which had titles containing one of these words did not receive enhanced numbers of citations. Both words (and also adjectives “unusual” and “unfortunately”) are used significantly more frequently in science than in social sciences and humanities. The distribution of the statements of surprise is not random in scientific literature (chemistry journals ranked highest in the number of papers claiming “surprising” or “unexpected” results) and may reflect the level of maturity of a discipline.

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

  • Bensman, S.J. (2007), Garfield and the Impact Factor, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41: 93–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, B. C. (1969), Bradford’s law and bibliography of science, Nature, 224: 953–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1991), The reliability of peer-review for manuscript and grant submissions — a cross-disciplinary investigation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, E., Golden, J. H., Mcfarland, E. W., Reaves, C. M., Weinberg, W. H., Wu, X. D. (1997), A combinatorial approach to the discovery and optimization of luminescent materials, Nature, 389: 944–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955), Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas, Science, 122: 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1971), How SCI bypasses “the road to scientific oblivion”, Current Contents, Dec. 22: 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1974), On routes to immortality, Current Contents, May 22: 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1980), Bradford’s Law and related statistical patterns, Current Contents, May 12: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2007), The evolution of the Science Citation Index, International Microbiology, 10: 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geysen, H. M., Schoenen, F., Wagner, D., Wagner, R. (2003), Combinatorial compound libraries for drug discovery: An ongoing challenge, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2: 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. P., Hellwig, J. P. (1997), Nutrition research in the media: The challenge facing scientists, Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 16: 544–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, A. (2003), Media mania, megalomania and misleading research: the need for caution in scientific publication, Veterinary Journal, 166: 213–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences USA, 102: 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasienski, M. (1991), Garfield’s demon: citation analysis and development of science in Poland (with particular reference to ecology) [in Polish], Wiadomosci Ekologiczne, 37: 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasienski, M. (1996), Though this be ecology, yet is there method in’t? Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 5: 50–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasienski, M., Thomas, S. C., Bazzaz, F. A. (1998), Blaming the trees: a critique of research on tree responses to high CO2, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13: 427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasienski, M. (2006), It’s incredible how often we’re surprised by findings, Nature, 440: 1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G., Hartley, J. (2005), What’s in a title? Numbers of words and the presence of colons, Scientometrics, 63: 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Bonds, N. W., Jayasinghe, U. W. (2007), Peer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid, Australian Psychologist, 42: 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. C. (2006), Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus, Academy of Management Journal, 49: 425–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D., Schwartz, J., Lichter, S. R. (2001), It Ain’t Necessarily So: How the Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poizat, B. (2001), Some modest comments on the unexpected consequences of a surprising result of Frank Olaf Wagners, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66: 1637–1646.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Weigold, M. F. (2001), Communicating science — a review of the literature, Science Communication, 23: 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nowy Sacz Business School — National-Louis University, Zielona 27, 33-300, Nowy Sacz, Poland

    Michal Jasienski

Authors
  1. Michal Jasienski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Jasienski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jasienski, M. Garfield’s demon and “surprising” or “unexpected” results in science. Scientometrics 78, 347–353 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1979-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1979-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation