Gerontology's Greatest Hits

Abstract

My first two editorials asked questions: Is gerontology inclusive? Is gerontology interdisciplinary? This editorial also began with a question: Is gerontology influential? As I pondered this question, however, I felt that it was so far-reaching that a more modest step was necessary. I remain intrigued by the grand question of gerontology's influence, but felt it might be helpful for readers to think about some of the most influential articles published in the Journal of Gerontology. Which articles have had the most influence on the field? What are the Journal's greatest hits? Radio stations have long identified greatest hits by the number of times that songs are played on the airwaves. Gerontology's hits are defined not by on-air play time, but by other measures. One widely-used indicator of influence is the number of citations to a publication. Web of Science is a popular and powerful tool that indexes approximately 8,700 scholarly journals to identify citations, but it also has its limitations. The citation protocol excludes citations of articles in books, but includes the citations of books in articles. Recognizing these limitations, Web of Science is used here to identify some of gerontology's greatest hits. Gerontology's most influential publications may span many important scientific journals, handbooks, and monographs, but only articles published in the Journal of Gerontology are considered for this editorial. Of course, if we were to also capture textbook citations to articles, the story of greatest hits may well be different. Citations are also widely used to calculate a journal's impact factor, but that measure is largely for comparing the relative influence of various journals (between-journal variation). By contrast, the interest in greatest hits is within-journal variation. Which articles in the Journal have had the most influence on the field? Can any be described as path breaking? Finding the greatest hits for this Journal, however, is not as simple as one might think. This is because the Journal has evolved over time. What began in 1946 as the Journal of Gerontology has undergone nine organizational changes since then. As described by Ferraro and Chan (1997), the key organizational issue has been whether or not to have topical sections. The Journal began without them, but instituted two sections in 1955: (a) Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine and (b) Psychological and Social Sciences, and Social Work Administration. Although the names changed, two sections remained until 1961, during which time the Journal reverted back to being without sections. It has had three or four sections ever since 1972, and the four sections were grouped into Series A and B in 1995. Although one can debate whether these changes in the Journal reflect the evolution of gerontology as a field, determining what are the greatest hits in gerontology requires either (a) ignoring the categories over the years or (b) categorizing the articles that appeared during the years with no sectional organization. I asked Markus Schafer to help me do both. We identify the “top 20” greatest hits for each approach—the top 20 for the Journal of Gerontology, regardless of sectional organization, and the top 20 within those identified in the Journal as social science. Tables 1 and 2 list the most frequently cited articles in descending order of citations. Table 1 is based on citations associated with articles published in the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences (and its predecessors). For articles published prior to 1985, this requires some judgment about which section is most meaningful. Of course, there is some arbitrariness to this classification—and some irony in explaining it for an “interdisciplinary field” of study—but we selected all articles that were primarily social or social-psychological in orientation. Some of the prior section headings such as “social gerontology” made this fairly straightforward, but other sections headings such as “psychology and the social sciences” required more careful examination of the article's contents. If in doubt, we erred on the side of inclusion, especially because Series B includes both Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. For each article, we present the year published, total citations, and citations per year. Although total citations and citations per year are highly correlated, the latter is especially useful for assessing the citation activity of more recent articles. The date of publication for the earliest manuscript on the list is 1961, and the Neugarten, Havighurst, & Tobin article is also at the top of the list: 940 citations (20 per year). There are four articles from the decade of the 1960s, seven from the 1970s, six from the 1980s, and three from the 1990s. The topics covered by these manuscripts are actually fairly concentrated. Seven manuscripts focus on measurement (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12), and seven focus on life satisfaction, morale, or well-being (1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 19). Investigators need measurement tools, and some of the greatest hits in the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences were simply due to researchers citing the measurement tools used, especially those for measuring life satisfaction and well-being (1, 4, 7, 12). By contrast, three articles mentioned theory in the title (9, 16, and 20). Lemon, Bengtson, and Peterson (1972) provided an empirical test of activity theory, while the others were focused on theoretical development or analysis (16 and 20, respectively). Other research topics that have attracted considerable attention include caregiving (5, 6, and 8), especially caregiver strain, and health measurement and ratings (3, 14, and 17). The most recent article on the list of greatest hits was published in 1993 by Manton, Corder, and Stallard (195 citations). This article examined change in disability and has averaged 13 citations per year (see also 11, which examines change in physical function). Table 2 displays the greatest hits for the Journal of Gerontology regardless of sectional organization. The date of publication for the earliest manuscript on the list is 1956, and this Harman article is also at the top of the list: 1,692 citations. The most recent articles on the list are from 1994 (15 and 18): the Guralnik et al. manuscript examines disability; Morris et al. is another measurement article, focused on cognitive performance. On the outcome of citations per year, the Guralnik et al. article is second only to Harman (1956). Although the biological article by Harman (1956) on free radicals and radiation chemistry tops the list, Neugarten et al. (1961) is second. Moreover, the top seven from Table 1 also appear on Table 2 (as 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14). Thus, the citations for social science research articles compare favorably with other sections. The influence of biological research on aging is also clear, especially research related to nutrition and body composition (8, 10, 13, and 20). Compiling the greatest hits is useful for identifying research areas that have attracted considerable attention, and it is one way to honor or memorialize the contributions of our most distinguished colleagues. One conclusion is that there are some social science articles which have had a profound impact on the field. To average 20 citations per year for more than four decades is a phenomenal accomplishment (Neugarten et al., 1961). Moreover, to have three articles on the social science list that were published during the 1990s is a testament to the contribution of those works. The exercise also clarifies that many of our greatest hits in the social sciences, and gerontology more generally, focus on measurement. It has been said that “measurement is the basis of all science.” Investigators need tools to measure phenomena, and the Journal has played an indispensable role in supplying tools for generations of scholars. It will likely continue to play such a role, presenting and critiquing measurement tools. We suspect that research interest on life satisfaction may fade somewhat, giving way to more studies of the measurement of disability and physical function. The compilation of greatest hits has also made clear that gerontology has long been concerned about quality-of-life issues, whether for older people per se or for the people engaged in caregiving to older adults. The fact that three social science articles made explicit reference to theory in their titles is also important. It is our sense that many investigators are eager for a meaningful theory to advance their work. The Journal explicitly welcomes both “theoretical articles” and theoretical applications within original research reports. Web of Science provides a handy method for quantifying citations to publications in its impressive list of serials. Of course, some of these greatest hits influence textbook presentations and classroom discussions in ways that are not so conveniently measured. There are many next steps that one could take to inquire about scholarly influence. A logical next step would focus on where the citations occur: In what journals are these greatest hits being cited? Gerontology is a relatively nascent field that draws from many disciplines. In this sense, some “gerontologists” may not cite gerontological journals. Rather, they may rely on sociology, economics, demography, anthropology, and family studies to frame the research inquiry. We believe, however, that the gerontological literature is now so deep that it is much more likely that contemporary authors are citing a blend of sources from the aforementioned disciplinary outlets and those that are distinctively gerontological. Of course, the other question is whether JGSS and other gerontology journals are being regularly cited in the mainline disciplinary journals. This would be very telling because it would provide evidence that gerontology is shaping the core disciplines from which it developed. Most Frequently Cited Social Science Articles in the Journals of Gerontology. Notes: Data reflect citation counts as of the week of October 15, 2007. Papers are considered social science research if they appeared in the sections “social science,” “social gerontology,” “psychology and the social sciences” and were considered primarily social in their orientation, or if they were not in any particular category but were considered primarily social in their orientation. aThe Neugarten et al. paper could arguably be considered a psychological research due to its wide acceptance in psychological science. Nevertheless, because the predominance of literature developing the concept of life satisfaction has fallen into the “social gerontology” grouping (when the Journal used headings), we have included her work in the social science category. Most Frequently Cited Social Science Articles in the Journals of Gerontology. Notes: Data reflect citation counts as of the week of October 15, 2007. Papers are considered social science research if they appeared in the sections “social science,” “social gerontology,” “psychology and the social sciences” and were considered primarily social in their orientation, or if they were not in any particular category but were considered primarily social in their orientation. aThe Neugarten et al. paper could arguably be considered a psychological research due to its wide acceptance in psychological science. Nevertheless, because the predominance of literature developing the concept of life satisfaction has fallen into the “social gerontology” grouping (when the Journal used headings), we have included her work in the social science category. Overall Most Frequently Cited Articles in the Journals of Gerontology. Notes: Data reflect citation counts as of the week of October 15, 2007. aIndicates social science article. Overall Most Frequently Cited Articles in the Journals of Gerontology. Notes: Data reflect citation counts as of the week of October 15, 2007. aIndicates social science article. I wrote in my 2006 editorial that I would work toward a more inclusive gerontological community, and that involving more scholars in the review process was one way of fostering inclusiveness. I argued that I would have a rotation plan to bring outstanding scholars to the Editorial Board and to provide those who served the Journal well with a break from the heavy load of reviewing. Thus, I would like to acknowledge the exemplary contributions made by several colleagues who are now rotating off the Board. I extend my deepest appreciation to Duane Alwin, Scott Bass, Adam Davey, R. Turner Goins, Ellen Idler, Jessica Kelley-Moore, Daniel Polsky, and Beth Virnig. I am also pleased to announce several new members of the Editorial Board whose terms began in January 2008. I look forward to working with this distinguished group of scholars who well represent the diversity of social scientific approaches to the study of aging: David M. Bass, Jeffrey Burr, David Ekerdt, Madonna Harrington Meyer, Linda Noelker, Eileen Porter, Benjamin Shaw, Debra Street, J. Jill Suitor, Gina Sylvestre, Jan Warren-Findlow, and Elaine Wethington. Finally, we continue to welcome new reviewers. Whether you are a distinguished professor or a graduate student, we invite you to participate in the scientific review process. For those who are new to the process, we have a novice reviewer program in which we typically add an extra reviewer to a manuscript. This gives new reviewers a chance to gain valuable experience reviewing and to see the comments of other anonymous reviewers on each manuscript. Of course, our hope is that novice reviewers will soon shed that novice descriptor. If you would like to review for the Journal, simply send a copy of your vita along with a brief note indicating the topics for which you are willing to review to jgss@purdue.edu. K.F.F.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.