Thread by @LHlusko

@journal_evo doesn't publish much on primates, but they have now published 2 papers on "primate macroevolution microevolution dentition".

YAY!

Surprising though that 2022 doesn't cite 2012.

Blatant citation bias is really frustrating.

And so, a thread for #AcademicTwitter

Here is that first publication from 2012:
"A modular framework characterizes micro- and macroevolution of old world monkey dentitions"
doi.org/10.1111/j.1558…

A quote from the abstract, "Our results of modularity by tooth type suggest that adult variation in the [cercopithecid] dentition is influenced by early developmental processes such as odontogenesis and jaw patterning."

This 2012 @journal_evo paper built on our quantitative genetic evidence published in 2011,
"Modularity in the mammalian dentition: mice and monkeys share a common dental genetic architecture"
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100…

which built on a decade of quant gen research that you can easily find by searching for "quant gen", "primates", "dentition" on pubmed, google scholar, or you could go visit my lab webpage here:
lesleahlusko.org/lab-publicatio…

I have long argued that knowledge of the underlying genetic architecture will improve our understanding of the evolution of primates, including humans. For example, in 2004,
"Integrating the genotype and phenotype in hominid paleontology"
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0…

and with a lot more examples in 2016,
"Elucidating the evolution of hominid dentition in the age of phenomics, modularity, and quantitative genetics"
doi.org/10.1016/j.aana…

My research aim has long been to improve how we assess phenotypic variation in the primate dentition so that it better reflects the underlying genetic architecture revealed by quantitative genetics.

The most key publication in this research published in 2016:
"The integration of quantitative genetics, paleontology, and neontology reveals genetic underpinnings of primate dental evolution" with @fuzzyatelin @PaleoTesla @MCMahaneyPhD @theoldbones
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1…

We've done a lot of follow-up work further testing the ideas presented therein. Such as this one from 2019 lead by assistant professor @PaleoTesla,
"Evidence of strong stabilizing effects on the evolution of boreoeutherian (Mammalia) dental proportions"
doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5…

And this project in 2020 lead by postdoc Marianne Brasil @theoldbones,
"A genotype:phenotype approach to testing taxonomic hypotheses in hominids"
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

We also explored this in bats too, a project lead by now-@UCLA PhD candidate Madeleine Zuercher,
"Dental Variation in Megabats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae): Tooth Metrics Correlate with Body Size and Tooth Proportions Reflect Phylogeny"
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

And the very recent 2022 paper with assistant professor @PaleoTesla in the lead again,
"Keeping 21st Century Paleontology Grounded: Quantitative Genetic Analyses and Ancestral State Reconstruction Re-Emphasize the Essentiality of Fossils"
mdpi.com/2079-7737/11/8…

In the new @journal_evo 2022 paper, @CarrieMongle, @pseudacris & co. also "argue that focusing on traits with well-understood...genetics can...elucidate the reasons for the apparent tendency for development to align with patterns of divergence"
Yep.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ev…

I love that @CarrieMongle @pseudacris and colleagues base their analysis on our 2011 quantitative genetic data. It is fantastic to see our hard work live on and be useful to other scientists.

But why not cite any of our research that similarly builds on it?

We all know that citations are essential to good science.
1 - It orients your work in the science

2 - It gives proper credit to the people on whose work yours builds.

3 - It leads other people to the interconnections across studies, facilitating future research

And we all know that citations are super important to academia.

Perhaps there is the hope that by not citing all this previous research, your work looks more innovative?

Or, perhaps you made a deliberate decision to not cite me/us for personal reasons?

Either way, when you do that, you hurt the careers of my coauthors, most of whom are early career people who are applying for jobs and working towards tenure.

Most of my coauthors are part of communities underrepresented in STEM, and they are all working hard to diversify science and make it more inclusive, and more kind.

If you only cite articles from the early 2000s written by white guys, those are the only people who will still be standing in academia when it is all said and done.
#DiversityandInclusion #DiversityInSTEM