A Golden Age for Biogerontology and Geroscience Is Approaching: Our Journal Is Here to Disseminate the Best of That New Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sibyl of Cumae was loved by Apollo. He bribed her by offering to prolong her life for as many years as there were grains in a heap of dust, in return for her embraces. She refused him and although he kept his word, he denied her perpetual youth, so she was commanded to centuries as a wizened crone. Metamorphoses 14:130–153 Aging is the leading risk factor for most chronic diseases. Understanding the aging process will allow us to better identify the pathophysiological mechanisms of those conditions, which will lead to the development of new preventative, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions. For more than 70 years, The Journals of Gerontology: Biological Sciences (JGBS) has published groundbreaking research in the fields of aging, geroscience, biogerontology, and biological and molecular mechanisms of common age-related diseases. Our impact factor is now 6.591; a significant achievement only obtained thanks to the dedication of a team of editors, members of the editorial board and supporting administrative personnel, and, very importantly, our authors who submit their best work to the journal and the peer reviewers who improve the quality of our published papers by providing their valuable feedback and recommendations. By assuming the role of Editor-in-Chief of the JGBS, I am aware of the significant responsibility I have in continuing the major achievements of my predecessors. I want to thank Drs. Rozalyn Anderson and David Le Couteur for their outstanding job as journal Co-Editors for the last 4 years. As editors, they navigated the early challenging times of a pandemic, maintaining the high quality of the publication and increasing the journal’s impact. Their success is also thanks to the support of a very committed Editorial Board. Times are changing in the aging research field. International initiatives involving biogerontology and geroscience are being created globally. New major funding initiatives are being implemented, and a significant amount of financial support is becoming available to researchers interested in exploring shared age-related mechanisms for chronic conditions, and the biological and molecular mechanisms of the aging process per se. All these advances allow me to predict that we are entering a “golden age” for biogerontology and geroscience research. As Editor-in-Chief, I am eagerly looking forward to participating in this golden age by helping to strengthen our mission to disseminate the best of this new knowledge among our aging research scholars, the scientific community, and, very importantly, our population in general, whose well-being and healthy aging should be the primary objective of all what we do at the bench, bedside, and in our communities. This new age will come with many fresh opportunities. We will use social media as a communication platform to enhance the dissemination of our published papers while promoting our authors’ achievements. We will also profit from the fact that beginning in January 2023, our journal will be fully online and include additional audiovisual materials such as graphical abstracts, slides ready for presentations, and videos. Regarding our new generation of authors and peer reviewers, we will establish a community of publishing scholars that will prioritize the participation of junior and mid-career investigators, while promoting inclusion and equity and applying the principles of the Reframing Aging initiative. With these objectives in mind, our Editorial Board will be rotated, and new members from all over the world will be invited to join us. A call for expression of interest (EOI) will be posted on our website soon. If you are a researcher in the biology of aging at any stage of your career, you are welcome to submit your EOI. All applications will be considered. As a clinician and biomedical scientist, I will be particularly interested in publishing articles that report discoveries with solid potential to elucidate new biomarkers or diagnostic or therapeutic methods to prevent and treat (separately or simultaneously) the multiple age-related diseases that challenge our health systems and affect the quality of life of older persons worldwide. With the Editor of the Medical Sciences section of the journal, Dr. Lewis Lipsitz, we will continue the tradition of publishing translational articles that provide biomedical evidence for current or future clinical interventions. Overall, our shared goal will be to simplify the submission process and provide our authors with an enriching, helpful, and enjoyable publishing experience. In summary, we are ready to embrace a new golden age in our field. Contrary to Sybil, we don’t have to spend our efforts counting grains in a heap of dust. Instead, while some investigators will work on ensuring that our older persons can age gracefully, functionally independent, and healthy, others will be looking to ensure perpetual youth. Which approach will prevail will be only known after our authors share their discoveries in the coming years. Our journal is ready to disseminate those discoveries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".