ArticleJournal of genetics2017
Why Gupta et al.'s critique of niche construction theory is off target.
Article in Journal of genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A generalised approach to the study and understanding of adaptive evolution.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023Article
- Biological adaptation in light of the Lewontin-Williams (a)symmetry.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022Article
- More Thumbs Than Rules: Is Rationality an Exaptation?Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Diverse interactions and ecosystem engineering can stabilize community assembly.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Scale-invariant topology and bursty branching of evolutionary trees emerge from niche construction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Feldman et al. do protest too much, we think.Journal of genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gupta et al., in their article in this issue ('Niche construction in evolutionary theory: the construction of an academic niche?'. doi:10.1007/s12041-017-0787-6), lament 'serious problems with the way science is being done' and suggest that 'niche construction theory exemplifies this state of affairs.' However, their aggressively confrontational but superficial critique of niche construction theory (NCT) only contributes to these problems by attacking claims that NCT does not make. This is unfortunate, as their poor scholarship has done a disservice to the evolutionary biology community through propagating misinformation.We correct Gupta et al.'s misunderstandings, stressing that NCT does not suggest that the fact that organisms engage in niche construction is neglected, nor does it make strong claims on the basis of its formal theory. Moreover, the treatment of niche construction as an evolutionary process has been highly productive, and is both theoretically and empirically well-validated.We end by reflecting on the potentially deleterious implications of their publication for evolutionary science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28761013What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.