ABSTRACT
Both analysts and participants, in coming to concrete conclusions about the status of any particular discovery, have to provide answers, either explicitly or implicitly, to a network of potential questions. These questions are likely to include the following: did a discovery occur? If there was a discovery, what exactly was discovered? Was the discovery a unique, individual achievement by a particular scientist or did more than one scientist share in the discovery? When did the discovery take place? When did it come to be recognized to be a discovery? How sure are we that it was a genuine discovery and not a fraud, a plagiarism or a mistake? If there is disagreement among participants about the answers to such questions, how is it to be dealt with? How much agreement among participants is required to certify a discovery and is the testimony of all participants to be treated equally? If a discovery turns out in due course to have been scientifically incorrect, will it then cease to have been a discovery?
