This paper (Part II of a two-part study) presents a process model of scientific creativity grounded in the Reflexive-Constructive Methodology (RCM). Building on the demarcation criterion introduced in Part I, the model specifies how scientific knowledge emerges, develops, and becomes institutionalised. Two fundamental sources of conditions are distinguished: the field (problems, norms, recognition criteria) and the domain (available means, methods, data, constraints). Scientific creativity unfolds at their intersection, overcoming specific barriers (epistemic, technological, economic, legal, ethical, psychological). Three hierarchical levels are analysed: the global level (evolution of field and domain over long time scales), the processual level (aggregation of concrete problems, resources, and barriers into research projects), and the individual level (reflexive acts of researchers). The research project is defined as a time‑ and resource‑bounded unit of the processual level. A key distinction is introduced between domain novelty (generative, locally validated) and field novelty (institutionally verified), allowing analysis of long latency periods between discovery and recognition. Diagnostic metrics – effectiveness, controllability, visibility – are proposed without turning them into target functions. The model is illustrated with historical examples (non‑Euclidean geometry) and shown to apply equally to natural sciences, humanities, and formal sciences. The paper concludes with implications for research management, science policy, and the design of reflexive research ecosystems.