Since the mid-twentieth century, the 'Scientific Revolution' has arguably occupied centre stage in most westerners', and many non-westerners', conceptions of science history. Yet among history of science specialists that position has been profoundly contested. Most radically, historians Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams in 1993 proposed to demolish the prevailing 'big picture' which posited that the Scientific Revolution marked the origin of modern science. They proposed a new big picture in which science is seen as a distinctly modern, western phenomenon rather than a human universal, that it was invented in the Age of Revolutions 1760-1848, and that science be de-centred within the new big picture: treated as just one of many forms of human knowledge-seeking activity. Their paper is one of the most highly cited in the history of science field, and has the potential to transform the way that science educators, science communicators, science policy-makers and scientists view science. Yet the paper and historians' scholarly response to it are not well-known outside the history discipline. Here I attempt to bridge that disciplinary gap with a review of scholarly papers published 1994-2014 that cited Cunningham and Williams or otherwise discussed the Scientific Revolution, to gauge the extent of support for the old and new big pictures. I find that the old big picture is disintegrating and lacks active defenders, while many scholars support aspects of the new big picture. I discuss the significance of this for scholars in 'applied' fields of science studies such as education, communication and policy. Accordingly, the format of this paper is a review of the post-1993 literature citing Cunningham and Williams or discussing the Scientific Revolution, highlighting key points of agreement or disagreement with the old or new big pictures. At the core of this I review works from the history of science field. I also include papers from other disciplines, to identify additional perspectives that have a bearing on the matter. Methods While elements of the Cunningham and Williams thesis have been argued elsewhere (e.g. in a 1988 paper by Cunningham), I use the 1993 paper as a focal point for the review because of the considerable influence it has exerted within its field. Quantitatively, it is the most highly cited paper published in its journal, The British Journal for the History of Science, and one of the most highly cited papers ever in the history of science field. 1 A more qualitative measure of its influence was its inclusion in a 2003 historical reader on the Scientific Revolution, despite editor Marcus Hellyer