SAGE KE Bulletin Board

Late-onset life extension studies; intervention-focused journal

18 June 2006

Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey

Dear Edouard, Concerning your points about late-onset studies, you are absolutely right -- and indeed I think most gerontologists privately agree with you (except that CR has now been found to be beneficial even when started late, so long as it is done carefully - see Spindler's study in PNAS 101:5524). There is an additional reason to do these studies, perhaps bigger than any of the ones you list, namely that a successful postponement of aging with a treatment started late in life will always stimulate much more self-interest from the general public, leading eventually to increased funding, than something done in the germ line or begun at weaning. The only explanation I have for why such studies are so rarely conducted is that researchers have much less idea what will work on elderly mammals than with early-onset studies and are scared of generating only so-called "negative results" that are hard to publish in high-impact journals.

That brings me to your other point. The journal I edit, Rejuvenation Research, is focused squarely on intervention and seeks to publish work of all kinds that has potential relevance to postponing mammalian aging. (We are also not afraid to publish so-called negative results!) In the latest impact factor data, released last week, RR obtained a score of 8.571, beating all other gerontology journals by at least 2.5 and also beating such illustrious titles as Human Mol Genet, NAR, FASEB J, MCB, MBC, JCS and Oncogene. The range of topics covered can be seen from our recent tables of contents, and especially the two latest issues which comprise the proceedings of the 2005 SENS conference that I ran in Cambridge last September:

RR is also, of course, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE. Instructions for authors are here:

and I encourage you to submit the manuscript you describe.

Science of Aging Knowledge Environment. ISSN 1539-6150