| Title |
In defence of inclusive fitness theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nature09835 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward Allen Herre, William T. Wcislo |
| Abstract |
Arising from M. A. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita & E. O. Wilson 466, 1057-1062 (2010); Nowak et al. reply. Arguably the defining characteristic of the scientific process is its capacity for self-criticism and correction. Nowak et al. challenge proposed connections between relatedness and the evolution of eusociality, suggest instead that defensible nests and "spring-loaded" traits are key, and present alternative modelling approaches. They then dismiss the utility of Hamilton's insight that relatedness has a profound evolutionary effect, formalized in his widely accepted inclusive fitness theory as Hamilton's rule ("Rise and fall of inclusive fitness theory"). However, we believe that Nowak et al. fail to make their case for logical, theoretical and empirical reasons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 30% |
| Researcher | 27 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 58 | 51% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 21 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,659,736
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#38,140
of 90,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,016
of 108,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#235
of 673 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 90,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 99.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 108,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 673 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.