Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 21;77(11):2149-2154.
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac129.

Disciplinary Roots of 300 Top-Ranked Scientific Contributors to Gerontology: From Legacy to Enriching Our Discovery

Kenneth F Ferraro  1   2
Affiliations

Disciplinary Roots of 300 Top-Ranked Scientific Contributors to Gerontology: From Legacy to Enriching Our Discovery

Kenneth F Ferraro. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. .

Abstract

Gerontology is viewed by many as a multidisciplinary field of inquiry, but which disciplines have had the greatest impact on research in the field? Combining data from a composite score incorporating multiple citation indicators with information on the highest degree, we examine the disciplinary origins of the 300 top-ranked scholars in gerontology. Despite efforts for gerontology to be distinct from geriatrics, more than 30 percent of the most influential scholars in gerontology during the past 6 decades hold a degree in medicine. Other fields of the leading contributors to gerontology include psychology, sociology, biology, biochemistry, and genetics. Although the disciplinary origins of gerontology will likely shift in the coming decades, we conclude that biomedical sciences are likely to remain core to the development of gerontology. To build on the scientific contributions of leading scholars in gerontology, future research should reflect conceptual precision and scientific innovation while prioritizing methodological rigor and transparency.

Keywords: Aging research; Citation metrics; Gerontology; Geroscience; Interdisciplinary studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ioannidis JP, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Multiple citation indicators and their composite across scientific disciplines. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(7):e1002501. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kreiner G. The slavery of the h-index—measuring the unmeasurable. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:556. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00556 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: the hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008;2(3):211–216. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001 - DOI
    1. Ioannidis JP. A generalized view of self-citation: direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78(1):7–11. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Noorden R, Chawla DS. Policing self-citations. Nature. 2019;572(7771):578–579. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types