They used the concept to refer to an alleged fourth sort of inference, beyond deduction, induction, and abduction: that of innoduction, a logical formula for innovative thinking.
Before Eekels, as suggested by Cramer-Petersen \cite{cramer-petersen_reasoning_2019}, but few have employed the concept, which perhaps was not forged until the early 1990s, when Roozenburg \cite{Roozenburg_1993} established the distinction between "explanatory" and "innovative" abductive inferences; in other words, abduction and innoduction.    
"The scientiŽc process encompasses observation, experimentation and reasoning, the latter being the primary function in the scientiŽc process. In claiming to be scientiŽc, reasoning should justify itself by following the rules of logic and methodology. But here arise formidable difŽculties. Often, reasoning is considered sound if, and only if, it strictly follows the rules of deductive logic, while infringements of these rules are considered logical fallacies. Yet in natural science and in technology, the rules of deductive logic have at crucial points to be transgressed, in order to make progress. Then inductive, abductive or innoductive inferences have to be made, all be it under the guidance of methodology" (Eekles)