↓ Skip to main content

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?

Overview of attention for article published in Theory in Biosciences, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 213)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?
Published in
Theory in Biosciences, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12064-018-0269-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda, Francisco Vergara-Silva

Abstract

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to 'extend' the Modern Synthesis-derived 'standard evolutionary theory' (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES-published by Laland and collaborators in 2015-in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Philosophy 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,929,150
of 24,953,268 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#21
of 213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,584
of 339,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,953,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.