Skip to main content

Scientific eminence historical and contemporary: A measurement assessment

Abstract

In some studies of scientific creativity it has proved useful to assess the differential eminence of scientists according to their presence in historical record (as registered by scholarly works). To determine the research utility of such indicators, a sample of 2026 scientists spanning several centuries and nationalities was taken from three biographical dictionaires of science. The eminence of each scientist was gauged 23 distinct ways using a diversity of reference works (e.g., histories, biographical dictionaires, encyclopedias, etc.) and variable operationalizations (e.g., space measures, ratings, rankings, etc.). Despite minor discrepancies due mainly to the degree of timewise bias and reference work type, a factor analysis demonstrated the existence of a pervasive concensus. A linear composite of these measures had an α reliability of 0.78. Further, it was shown that (a) the reliability of assessed eminence somewhat declines as it is applied to more recently born scientists, (b) the reliability remains high within separate disciplines and nationalities, and (c) assessed eminence, once complex time trends are controlled, correlates positively with the more commonly used citation counts, especially the number of cited publications. Hence, archival indicators of scientific eminence are both reliable and consistent with other scientometric procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References and Notes

  1. See, for example, W. DENNIS, Bibliographies of Eminent Scientists,Scientific Monthly, 79 (1954), No. 3, 180–183, and D. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963, chap. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For instance, see S. COLE, J. R. COLE, Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967), 377–390, and R. L. HELMREICH, J. T. SPENCE, W. R. BEANE, G. W. LUCKER, K. A. MATTHEWS, Making it in Academic Psychology: Demographic and Personality Correlates of Attainment,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (1980), No. 5, 896–908.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For example, see P. D. ALLISON, J. S. LONG, T. K. KRAUZE, Cumulative Advantage and Inequality in Science,American Sociological Review, 47 (1982), 615–625.

    Google Scholar 

  4. F. GALTON,Hereditary Genius, MacMillan, London, 1869.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F. GALTON,English men of science, Macmillan, London, 1874.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. L. KROEBER,Configurations of Culture Growth. University of Calfiornia Press, Berkeley, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. M. CATTELL, A Statistical Study of Eminent Men,Popular Science Monthly, 62 (1903), 359–377.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. K. SIMONTON, Sociocultural Context of Individual Creativity: A Transhistorical Time-Series Analysis,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (1975), 1119–1133; D. K. SIMONTON, Does Sorokin's Data Support His Theory?: A Study of Generational Fluctuations in Philosophical Beliefs,Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15 (1976), No. 2, 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. K. MERTON, The Matthew Effect in Science,Science, 159 (1968), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. K. SIMONTON, Multiple Discovery and Invention: Zeitgeist, Genius, or Chance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1979), 1603–1616.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. K. SIMONTON, The Library Laboratory: Archival Data in Personality and Social Psychology, in L. WHEELER (Ed.),Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 2), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  12. This is only strictly true. On the one hand, attempts have been made to evaluate the reliability of aggregate measures of scientific creativity, as in D. K. SIMONTON, Interdisciplinary creativity over Historical Time: A Correlational Analysis of Generational Fluctuations,Social Behavior and Personality, 3 (1975), No. 2, 181–188; D. K. SIMONTON, The Casual Relation between War and Scientific Discovery: An Exploratory Cross-National Analysis,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7 (1976), No. 2, 133–144; D. K. SIMONTON, Interdisciplinary and Military Determinants of Scientific Productivity: A Cross-Lagged Correlation Analysis,Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9 (1976), 53–62; D. K. SIMONTON, Techno-Scientific Activity and War: A Yearly Time-Series Analysis, 1300–1903 A. D.,Scientometrics, 2 (1980), 251–255. On the other hand, eminence measures for fields other than science have been shown to be reliable, as in D. K. SIMONTON, Philosophical Eminence, Beliefs, and Zeitgeist: An Individual-Generational Analysis,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (1976), 630–640; D. K. SIMONTON, Eminence, Creativity, and Geographic Marginality: A Recursive Structural Equation Model,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (1977), 805-816.

    Google Scholar 

  13. For a more general answer to this question see D. K. SIMONTON, Biographical Determinants of Achival Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (1976), 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  14. I. ASIMOV,Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (New Red. Ed.), Doubleday, Garden City, N. Y., 1972; A. V. HOWARD,Chambers Dictionary of Scientists, Dutton, New York, 1951; T. I. WILLIAMS, (Ed.),A Biographical Dictionary of Scientist's (2nd ed.), Wiley, New York, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  15. op. cit., note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  16. op. cit., note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Concise Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Scribner's, New York, 1981.

  18. A. G. DEBUS, (Ed.),World Who's Who in Science, Marquis, Who's Who, Chicago, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. LENARD,Great Men of Science, H. S.Hartfield trans., MacMillan, New York, 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  20. op. cit., note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  21. I. ASIMOV,Biographical Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, Doubleday, Garden City, N. Y., 1964. One of the reasons why this source was used in addition to the second edition is that only this first edition made fine distinctions between major and subsidary entries for scientists.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. E. GREENE, (Ed.),100 great scientists, Pocket Books, New York, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. F. MASON,A History of the Sciences (New Rev. Ed.), Collier Books, New York, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  24. N. ABBAGNANO, (Ed.),Storia delle Scienze, Unione Tipoyrafico, Torino, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. DAUMAS, (Ed.),Encyclopedie de la Pleiade: Histoire de la Science, Librairie Gallimard, Paris, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. E. BARNES,An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World, (3rd rev. ed.), Dover, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1974.

  28. For another use of this in measuring scientific eminence, seeSimonton, op. cit., note 10.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. HUTCHINS, (Ed.),Great Books of the Western World. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Chambers, Edinburgh, 1975.

  31. Webster's Biographical Dictionary, Merriam, Springfield Mass., 1976.

  32. op. cit., note 4, pp. 243–275.

    Google Scholar 

  33. C. COX,The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1926, Table 12.

    Google Scholar 

  34. op. cit., note 6, chap. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  35. V. GOERTZEL, M. G. GOERTZEL,Cradles of Eminence. Little, Brown, Boston, 1962, pp. 301–349, and M. G. GOERTZEL, V. GOERTZEL, T. G. GOERTZEL,Three Hundred Eminent Personalities, Jossey-Bass San Francisco, 1978, pp. 349–393.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Science Citation Index Five-Year Cumulation 1970–1974, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, 1976. The more recent 1975–1979 accumulation was not used since it had not been published at the time this study began, in 1980.

  37. See, e.g., S. COLE, J. R. COLE, Measuring the Quality of Sociological Research: Problems in the Use of the Science Citation Index,American Sociologist. 6 (1971), 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See N. H. NIE, C. H. HULL, J. G. JENKINS, K. STEINBRENNER, D. H. BENT,SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975, chap. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. C. NUNNALLY,Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967, chap. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. TYNDALL,Fragments of Science (Vol. 2), Appleton, New York, 1897, p. 336.

    Google Scholar 

  41. NUNNALLY, op. cit., note 39, p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simonton, D.K. Scientific eminence historical and contemporary: A measurement assessment. Scientometrics 6, 169–182 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016760

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016760

Keywords

  • Complex Time
  • Time Trend
  • Variable Operationalizations
  • Space Measure
  • Historical Record