HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, T. E. Articles by Smith, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, T. E. Articles by Smith, J. R.

A Forum for Commentaries on Recent Publications

¹ Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado at Boulder.
² Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle.
³ Department of Pathology, Sam and Ann Barshop Center on Longevity and Aging, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

THIS editorial is about many things. It is about equity, independent of one's place of employment. It is about an exciting and perhaps revolutionary era in the biology of aging when the very possibility of control and alteration of the fundamental processes causing aging may be at hand. It is about the co-optation of power when new funding sources and sponsors become available. However, primarily, it is about the role of a scientific society, such as The Gerontological Society of America (GSA), in the maintenance of a scholarly enterprise.

Aging research is hot. Within the last 5 years, no less than 283 articles listing "aging" as a key word have appeared within the pages of the two major scientific weeklies, Nature and Science. More than half of these, 147, have dealt specifically with genetic approaches and, of these, 30 have specifically analyzed aging in the nematode C. elegans. As many as 4 articles have appeared within a few months, each finding the daf-18 gene to encode Pten. In another example, the clk-2 gene was associated with shortened telomeres, longer telomeres, or no effect upon telomere lengths in 3 different, nearly simultaneous publications. Research into the genetics of aging is especially hot.

A provocative article appeared in Nature recently (1) concerning the perceived and real needs to publish in certain "leading" journals. Nature should be praised for such a self-examination. Dr. Lawrence (1) made many points, but major among them was the undue influence that a few journals such as Science and Nature have on the scientific process. Such publications, points out Dr. Lawrence, are often "performance indicators," used in place of the science itself as evidence of superiority. This competition for rapid and first publication in these major, high-impact journals has "consequences for authors, editors and reviewers" and, we might add, for the readers and for competitor journals as well. Such an influence is seen not only in objective conveyance of scientific knowledge, with these articles being cited (if not read) much more often than articles published elsewhere. Such "large impact factors" in turn play a role in issues of job advancement, hiring, promotion, and so forth. Indeed, numerous formal advancement procedures include assessment of the impact of one's publications, which are in large part determined by where such articles are published (quality issues aside). These major journals in turn vie for high-profile articles, which will be much cited, and therefore reinforce the validity of publication in themselves. Such self-referential systems are fraught with the possibility of abuse.

At the crux of this problem is the issue of editorial responsibility, where "even experienced editors are on uncertain ground" (1). The multidisciplinary nature of such journals places extraordinary demands on the editors. Very often, we suspect, the editor has little background and almost certainly no publications in the field in question. Although expert opinions are regularly sought by high-impact journals, in the absence of background knowledge and ability to interpret the data, it is difficult to know who is correct when a disagreement among expert reviewers or between a reviewer and an author arises over attribution or interpretation. An even larger problem arises when claims of priority are made. The "first to publish" claims an inordinate fraction of the notoriety for a discovery, even if the first study is not the best, or the most careful.

Finally, in what may be just the tip of the iceberg, postpublication claims by universities, institutions, publicists, and affiliated commercial enterprises are widely circulated and make egregious claims, often far beyond what is made by the articles themselves and perhaps far beyond what the authors themselves would claim. Such abuses have the potential to alter even more dramatically the normal scientific process because these claims themselves affect the ability to garner support, both from individuals and from governmental and private sources.

It is absolutely essential for the good of our joint enterprise in exploring the biological basis of aging that issues of scientific validity, priority, and scholarly accuracy be properly attributed. A scientific society such as GSA provides an appropriate forum for public discussion of such issues. GSA's publications—Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, and The Gerontologist—represent a series of specialty journals. The 5 journals are the "voice" of a multidisciplinary society, 6000 members strong, containing most of the combined expertise and background in aging research in America. The separation of the journals along disciplinary lines ensures that the Journals of Gerontology (together with The Gerontologist) are reviewed in ways consistent with disciplinary specificity. The editors and associate editors of each journal are sufficiently diverse that they can usually understand the papers under review. Like other journals, they also seek independent expert reviewers who can address both scientific and scholarly aspects of papers submitted for publication. A small journal like the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences cannot expect to compete with high-profile and high-impact journals such as Science and Nature for the right to publish such high-profile articles. Indeed, in the last several years, the number of articles on the genetics of aging published within the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences has been miniscule. However, the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences can ensure that every article published within its covers is well reviewed by scientists who are very familiar with the field, and that the articles themselves are both scientifically accurate and scholarly. Is this as far as a journal can go? Are there additional responsibilities of a scientific society such as GSA? We think the answer is a resounding "No!" to the first question and "Yes!" to the second question.

It is our opinion that a forum for discussion of the issues mentioned above is needed. Thus, with this editorial, we begin a new service and a new feature of the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, a scholarly forum where recent articles can be discussed in print, online, and in full public view. Such discussions are not limited to articles in a particular subdiscipline or to articles published in exceptionally high-impact journals such as Cell, Science, and Nature, but we expect these to be especially prominent. The full guidelines for such discussions are still being worked out and will be available in the Instructions to Authors (available at http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org). We envision a public discussion of recently published articles from any journal, wherein issues of scientific validity, generality, issues of priority, and claims of the article can be discussed in a manner similar to what should be done by an informed reviewer. We expect that such a forum may at times become contentious, but the editors will ensure that it is always polite. Such a forum could become a venue for an individual to sound his or her own horn, but editors can limit such potential abuses; moreover, the very public nature of this enterprise will help ensure against abuse.

The Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences will sponsor this forum on a continuing basis with free availability online, at least initially. We welcome responses from all, both members and nonmembers of the GSA. We are circulating an electronic version of this editorial to members of other societies; we would welcome their views. We have also provided editors of major journals early access to this editorial. Comments should be forwarded to Dr. James R. Smith, the Editor of the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences. Comments about recently published articles should also be forwarded to Dr. Smith. Guidelines for rapid review of these comments are available in the Instructions to Authors (available at http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org).

Acknowledgments

Address correspondence to James R. Smith, PhD, Department of Pathology, Sam and Ann Barshop Center on Longevity and Aging, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 15355 Lambda Drive, San Antonio, TX 78245. E-mail: smithjr{at}uthscsa.edu

REFERENCE

1. Lawrence, P. A. The Politics of Publication. Nature.. 2003;442:259-261.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, T. E. Articles by Smith, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, T. E. Articles by Smith, J. R.