Talk:Rejuvenation Research

Impact factor

• I have removed a comment added by User:Benbest citing a commentary by Kovacic and Misac for the following reasons. (It should be noted that these two authors commented on an article by Gami et al. and I refer to this refereed article and not to the -probably non-refereed- commentary):

1. The information on the amount of self-citations and the IF without those self-citations is stated in a completely neutral manner.
2. The Gami et al. article discusses self-citation rates of about 20%. The 68% found here is a different order of magnitude altogether. (I have never seen a self-citation rate for a journal even approaching this level, but that is, of course original research.
3. Benbest's comment sounds like it is defending the quality this journal, which is not only not neutral, but this is also not the place for such a discussion of the value or lack thereof of a high impact factor.
4. As long as we're talking OR, I have had a look at the self-citation rates of other journals in the same ISI category "GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY" that Rejuv Res belongs to. If the argument that the high self-citation rates are cause by this being a specialized field holds true, these journals should all have similarly high self-citation rates. The 4 journals having the highest IF in this category (Rejuv Res is the fifth) have self citation rates of 8, 4, 3, and 0%. The 4 following journals have 15, 14, 5, and 12%.

--Crusio (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Before adding my comment I did a bit of research and updated Impact_factor#General with both the refereed citation and the commentary. The reason I chose to cite the commentary rather than the refereed citation in my addition to this article is that the refereed citation is concerned with author self-citation, whereas the commentary deals with journal self-citation as well. It seems to me that the motivation of your comments is not neutral, but is based on a desire to disparage Rejuvenation Research. I don't doubt your claim of the 68% journal self-citation or the adjusted impact factor, but the citation you give in support Web of Science is not an accessible reference to the typical Wikipedian. I acknowledge that I am an admirer of the work published in Rejuvenation Research, but my comments which you deleted were neutral. I reported on a commentary made by seasoned researchers about a refereed study. Nothing in the study or the commentary would indicate that a higher level of self-citation means lower quality. That is your interpretation. If you were to be fair and neutral you would restore my comment which you deleted, and perhaps add a citation to support your claim that 68% is unusually high. I am not going to engage in an edit war, so I am leaving this matter to your sense of fairness and neutrality. --Ben Best (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, Rejuv Res is not freely accessible either, but that is completely immaterial. WoS is an accepted source on WP. As for the self-citations in Rejuv Res, I looked at their website and the December 2008 issue is available for free online. It contains an editorial and 2 commentaries by the Editor-in-Chief, de Grey. These 3 items (mind you, all commentaries, not research articles) contain a grand total of 101 references, all to articles published in Rejuv Res in 2006 or 2007 (the years that ISI will use to determine the 2008 impact factor of a journal). There's also an interview, it contains another 18 such references (again, that's all references in that item, and again, not a research article). With 121 articles published in 2006 and 2007, the 119 citations in these 4 editorial items account for a whole point in the journal's impact factor. I cannot access any other issues, but all contain an editorial by de Grey and several commentaries, so it would appear to me that the bulk of the self-citations come from these editorial items. Whether this means this journal is "gaming the system" I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions.

As for you comments which I deleted, they were out of place as they discussed the value (or lack thereof) of the IF (and the possible influence of self-citations). Note that I did not delete your comment in the article on the IF, where this kind of comment is at its place. Also note that the commentary that you cite is a non-refereed opinion piece. --Crusio (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement of mine which you deleted provided counter-evidence to your implication that self-citation is proof of lack of quality. It is characteristic of Dr. de Grey to be very involved in interacting-with and commenting about contributions and contributors to his journal. Whether that involves any "gaming the system," I cannot say, but you cannot substantiate your claim that he is guilty on the grounds of the evidence you presented. We should stick to the facts. The commentary I cited by seasoned researchers (and the more detailed note I provided in the IF article) indicates that self-citation is not proof of "gaming the system" or lack of quality. --Ben Best (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the article is it stated that the self-citations are evidence for lack of quality, neither have I said so on this talk page. Nor have I stated anywhere that an impact factor reflects quality. As it stands, the article only presents sourced facts. The comment you cited is not about Rejuv Res and only addresses the issue of self-citation in general. Adding it to this article is therefore suggestive and POV, as it is your interpretation that this commentary also applies to Rejuv Res. (Adding it to the IF article, of course, is something different altogether). As a parenthesis (not that de Grey's intentions are actually relevant here), if you read those editorials, you'll see that they are not exactly "interacting-with and commenting about contributions". But, again, whether or not you are right or I am right about his editorials, that's interpretation and OR and therefore not admissible in the article. Fact without interpretation is that 4 editorial items in the Dec 2008 issue account for 1 whole point of the journal's impact factor. Whether that's good or bad I leave it upon the reader to decide. --Crusio (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "One contributing reason for achieving this relatively high impact factor is 68% self citations (see analysis provided by the 2008 Journal Citation Reports; without self citations the impact factor is 1.570)." Where exactly in the source provided is that stated? This looks like an analysis of raw data by a wikipedia editor in order to push a point of view, i.e. original research. --Green06 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, this is not OR. This analysis is in the report on Rejuvenation Research in the JCR. If you have access to JCR, search for the journal, click on it, and scroll down to "Journal Self Cites". OR would be to add something like "this is the most of any journal covered by the JCR", because JCR doesn't provide rankings for this. (BTW, I just made up that statement as an example, I don't know whether it is actually true. Even though 68% is very high, there may well be other journals out there with higher self-citation rates). --Crusio (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost three-year break

• Recent edits have again removed this information, which is sourced to a reliable source. The fact that this journal's IF is derived for an extremely large part from self citations, is something of interest and sourced to a reliable source (if that source is not reliable, we should remove the whole IF altogether...) The claim that similar mentions are not given for other journals is incorrect (see, for example, The ScientificWorldJournal). All journals have some level of self citations, obviously, but usually these remain at very modest levels. For example, I checked the JCR for Genes, Brain and Behavior, where the overall self-citation rate is 2% and the self-citation rate for the years used for the IF calculation is 3%. A journal from a more restricted field (where one might expect to have higher rates of self citation), Behavior Genetics, has 5% and 3%, respectively. For Rejuvenation Research these figures are 22% and 43% (and if I wanted to engage in original research, I would remark that the total numbers of self citations are even more revealing: there's a total of 256 self citations over all years, of those, a whopping 242 are exactly to articles published in the two-year window used for the calculation of the IF. I think it is pretty clear what this implies...). As for the removed reference to the journal being "fringy", "NPOV" does not mean giving equal coverage to opposing opinions. Our articles on flat Earth theories and creationism clearly indicate that it is fringe science. As it is, there obviously are more people viewing this journal as a fringe science journal than people seeing it as a serious scientific journal. In this respect, it should be noted that the person calling this "a heroic effort to jump-start research on postponing or slowing human aging" can hardly be called an "independent source", as he is a member of this journal's editorial board. I think it could even be argued that this self-praise should be removed from the article, leaving only the two "fringe" comments. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guillaume2303 - I think you raise several excellent points and it's apparent from your profile page as well from your talk posts that you have a firm understanding of both science and the publication process. I do disagree with some of your comments, however. You feel that Rejuvenation Research's self-citation rate should be included because it is aberrantly high. I think it's undeniable that the journal is unique in having a self-citation rate of 43%. According to the Journal of Citation Reports, however, approximately 18% of all research journals have self-citation rates over 20%, with the mean self-citation rate across all scientific journals being approximately 12.1%. While 43% is still quite high compared to this mean, it's not so rare as you may think. Unless self-citation rates are mentioned for the 1,000+ journals whose self-citation rates exceed 20%, I do believe that it is biased to introduce the impact factor exempting self-citations. You claim that there are more people who obviously view this journal as being on the fringe versus being reputable. I think the word "obvious" is unjustified, as my research regarding commentary of this journal finds a wide array of opinions, ranging from positive to negative. This is really the case for all journals, even top-tier journals like Nature and Science, both of which have been criticized for being more about politics and less about legitimate research. I think it's also important to take into account that this journal has become more reputable over time. While several years ago its self-citation rates exceeded 60%, it dropped to 43% in 2011. Furthermore, the journal has moved toward publishing papers on a more consistent basis (bi-monthly versus quarterly) and has become more well known in the literature. The topic of rejuvenation and prolonging lifespan is also very controversial in the scientific community, for both scientific and ethical reasons. There are those who believe it's beyond our intellectual potential and those who believe that curing and/or delaying aging are immoral goals. As such, it is difficult to tell if critique or praise of this journal is a fair assessment of its content or simply part of the debate regarding human life extension. Here is what I see as being a fair and honest compromise: If you really feel it's important to do so, go ahead and mention the self-citation rates, but make sure to consistently to do so for other journals with high self-citation rates. Until the journal's self-citation rates approach more normal values (I would say <= 20%), I can understand the desire to include it. My only concern is that the inclusion of it stands out and, to the unfamiliar reader, may come across as biased. With regard to the referenced praise and critiques of the journal, I would recommend deleting it all together. Without having a super-comprehensive section addressing published commentary regarding Rejuvenation Research (and mentioning the wide array of different comments its received), including mention of various perspectives regarding the journal's content definitely takes away from the neutrality of the article.

98.5% Chimpanzee (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, let me try to summarize:

We agree that RR is unique in having a self-citation rate of 43%. We also agree some people regard this journal as being "fringy".

We disagree about whether the self-citation rate should be in the article and you claim that the journal is improving regarding its "fringy" aspects.

First the self-citation rate. It escapes me why 1/ being "unique" is not worth mentioning in the article. 2/ Why this should be mentioned in all articles having self-citation rates over 20%. 43% is more than twice as much as 20%, so where does this threshold come from? In addition, whether or not this should be mentioned in other journal articles is an issue that should be discussed on their talk pages. Here we are concerned with RR and what should be in this article. That there are other articles that are perhaps worse than this article is an argument that doesn't hold (irreverently known as WP:OPTHERCRAPEXISTS).

Second, the only opinion that this is a wonderful journal comes from an editorial board member, hardly an independent source. In addition, it really is not true that "most journals" are the subject of a wide array of (published) opinions: most journals are never discussed themselves (in contrast to articles published in those journals). Here, to, RR is more of an exception, making these references all the more noteworthy. You say that there's a wide array of different comments that the journal received. Can you give a ew references for that perhaps? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume2303: The two sources you cite for your statements referring to Rejuvenation Research as "fringy" are inappropriate sources. The first one comes from an unreputable, popular science website by an author whose credentials are not made apparent anywhere on this website. No academic would respect this citation and, as such, it should be removed. Your other source is also taken out of context, as the author, when using the word "fringy," does not do so in a disrespectful manner. The quote is the following:

"Academic researchers of aging have begun to show explicit interest in anti-aging. The launching of the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine in 1999 (renamed Rejuvenation Research in 2004) marked a purposeful claim to professionalization. Admittedly Rejuvenation Research is situated at the fringe of gerontology by taking the controversial stance that aging is ameliorable while demanding to be taken as serious science (Fossel, 2002). This “curious gray zone” has also been inhabited by a number of scientific conferences and a multitude of both academic and popular publications ( [de Grey et al., 2002], [Olshansky and Carnes, 2001] and [Post and Binstock, 2004] and others). In 2003, a group focusing on anti-aging was established at the Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America. The year 2003 also saw the invention of the Methuselah Mouse Prize which awards researchers who successfully pursue certain anti-aging goals."

The author spends the majority of the time writing about controversy and academic disagreement about curing aging - whether it's possible and how the field has been viewed as "fringy" by more traditionalists. From how you describe it in your writings, however, you make it sound like the author is remarking on the journal in a disrespectful manner. The author merely makes a comment that the journal, having a focus in anti-aging, has been seen as fringy by researches who don't view anti-aging research as serious science. This is hardly a valid critique of the journal and, since most of the biological community now acknowledges that delaying/repairing senescence is a viable goal, I see no point in mentioning this.

Furthermore, including a quote from an editorial board member is superfluous, as it can hardly be seen as neutral. This entire section is foolish and serves no real purpose and, as such, it should be deleted.

With regard to published articles praising the research in Rejuvenation Research, take a look at FightAging.org, Longecity.org, Lef.org, Hplusmagazine.com, and the Wall Street Journal. Also, with regard to other journals (like Nature, Cell, and Science), you only need to spend 30 seconds on Google before you find unhappy scientists bashing or praising aspects of those journals in academic and popular publications.

Here's my compromise with you: I'll let you keep your comment regarding the high self-citation rates as I agree they are aberrantly high. However, I'm going to delete the comments regarding the journal's worth (whether it's incredible or fringy), as the comments are poorly cited and serve no useful purpose in this journal, except to make it less neutral and more charged with bias.

98.5% Chimpanzee (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:FRINGE we reflect it's level of acceptance. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To IRWolfie: The journal's focus is not fringy, as rejuvenation and/or longevity research is published in a huge spectrum of journals and is frequently featured in top-tier journals like PLOS Biology, PLOS Genetics, Nature, Science, Cell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and many others. Including any comment that having an anti-aging focus for peer-reviewed, objective research is fringy is frankly unscientific. Many other journals also have aging-oriented focuses and publish huge volumes of anti-aging an/or rejuvenation research, namely Experimental Gerontology, Mechanisms of Aging and Development, and others. I don't think you can easily justify labeling the focus of this journal as being fringy.

98.5% Chimpanzee (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The secondary sources say otherwise, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you read the third source before making comments that do not reflect reality.Imparti (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So anybody who is curious knows, the quote is at this massive PDF on page 16. CityOfSilver 00:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just so everyone is aware, the current quote for the third source is not the same quote found in the actual source (which can be found at the following link http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089040650800056X). If you go directly to the paper (the link of which can also be found in the references section for this article) published in the Journal of Aging Studies, you will find that the full quote is the following: "Academic researchers of aging have begun to show explicit interest in anti-aging. The launching of the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine in 1999 (renamed Rejuvenation Research in 2004) marked a purposeful claim to professionalization. Admittedly Rejuvenation Research is situated at the fringe of gerontology by taking the controversial stance that aging is ameliorable while demanding to be taken as serious science." Mostly Translucent (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Sources and Commentary

sockpuppets

Thank you very much for providing a link to that PDF, as that is quite useful. I read over it and, addition to the quote that is already mentioned (mentioning that the anti-aging focus of Rejuvenation Research is situated on the fringe of gerontology), I found another quote which may be nice to include. The quote can be found on page 120 of the linked document (see link above) and reads as follows: "JAAM (renamed Rejuvenation Research in 2004 under the editorship of Aubrey de Grey) stands out as an important site of recruitment for the notion of anti-aging; the journal is a rallying point of anti-aging research asserting expertise through the biogerontological “bench.” I feel that including the latter portion of this quote ("stands out as an important site of recruitment for the notion of anti-aging; the journal is a rallying point of anti-aging research asserting expertise through the biogerontological “bench.”") would be a nice addition to this article. Since the third source is a paper advocating rejuvenation- and anti-aging-oriented research, I feel that including this would be more thorough and help make the article a tad more balanced. SattvaBodhi (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC) To be more specific - unless anyone objects, I will edit the commentary on the 'Rejuvenation Research' page to the following: The journal has received mixed appreciations, with editorial board member Michael R. Rose calling it "a heroic effort to jump-start research on postponing or slowing human aging",[1] whereas others judge it as being "somewhat fringy"[2]. Others have referred to the journal as "an important site of recruitment for the notion of anti-aging...a rallying point of anti-aging research asserting expertise through the biogerontological "bench"" or "situated admittedly at the fringe of gerontology by taking a controversial stance while demanding to be taken as serious science."[3] I will wait a few days to see if anyone objects to this change. Otherwise, I will make the edit. My justification for doing this is, again, the following: Since the third source argues for the legitimacy of anti-aging and rejuvenation-oriented research and speaks favorably of this research, only citing a portion of the paper which paints the journal in a negative light is unfair to Rejuvenation Research and not an honest representation of the source.SattvaBodhi (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC) No, you won't. Not until you see consensus from it, which your not getting from me. Looks like quotemining and cherryppicking out of context to me. It reads a lot different in the body of the source than as a stand-alone sentence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC) If you would read the third source, you would realize that your recent comment is false. In fact, the converse is true - the proposed quote addition more accurately reflects the opinion of the source. The existing quote in the article is, using your exact words, "quotemining and cherrypicking out of context." I am not going to initiate edits without consensus but, if you take the time to read the third source, I do not believe you can reasonably disagree. As mentioned previously by SattvaBodhi, the author of this source "argues for the legitimacy of anti-aging and rejuvenation-oriented research." The current usage of this source does not reflect its core assertion.Imparti (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC) marked blocked sockpuppets. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)</small

I'm not sure why there is any mention of divergent appreciations for this journal. Three opinions are cited, and all are outdated and no longer characterize how the scientific community views aging, rejuvenation, and therapeutic interventions relevant to aging. Of the three individuals cited for these opinions, only one (the first by Michael R. Rose) comes from a biomedical scientist. The impartiality of this first opinion is questionable, however, as it comes from an editorial board member of the journal. The second opinion comes from a popular science writer with no obvious credentials in biomedical research and is also heavily outdated (all the way back in 2005). The third comes from an anthropology graduate student who is commenting on the controversy surrounding the feasibility of aging interventions in 2008 (which is also outdated for the aging field) and, within her paper, offers no strong opinion for or against this research. Again, this is not a biomedical expert. As such, the utility of including these latter two opinions is, like the first one, questionable.

Furthermore, there has been radical change in how the biomedical community views aging, life extension, and rejuvenation. These are no longer controversial ideas, as myriad ways have been discovered to extend lifespan and healthspan in numerous organisms (ranging in complexity from yeast to mice) and pharmaceutical interventions have been found to extend lifespan in middle-aged mice. Moreover, recent advances in regenerative medicine have shown that rejuvenation is, at least to a limited extent, possible in mice and potentially humans. For these reasons, I don't feel that the commentary mentioned on this Wikipedia page accurately reflects how the scientific community views this journal. Recent papers in top-tier journals (e.g., The Hallmarks of Aging by López-Otín et al. published earlier this year in Cell) openly advocate that a primary goal of understanding aging is to develop interventions to extend healthspan and reverse age-related damage. Lastly, as a scientist in the field of biology, I know that my colleagues as well as myself enjoy the manuscripts published by this journal and feel that they significantly contribute to our scientific understand of aging and age-related disease. For all of these reasons, I feel the included commentary on this page unfairly portrays appreciations of this journal and does not reflect the 2013 perspective on aging and rejuvenation. Mostly Translucent (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• If there are other appraisals of this journal that are published in reliable sources, we could certainly think about adding those to the article. If those sources mention previous criticism and say that the scientific community has generally changed the way they see this journal, we might include that, too. Until then, I don't see any reason to remove sourced information. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a very recent 2013 news article published on November 6th by the University of South Florida (the article URL is the following: http://www.research.usf.edu/absolute-news/templates/template1.aspx?articleid=1703&zoneid=1) which makes mention of Rejuvenation Research. The following quote by Dr. Paula C. Bickford can be found in the article: "We are honored to have the NutraStem Cardio study published in an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal like Rejuvenation Research.” I am not ultra familiar with what Wikipedia considers legitimate and illegitimate sources, but would this be an acceptable source to cite? Namely, the reference to the journal being "internationally respected". Mostly Translucent (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• A press release from the university is not really a neutral source. They really aren't going to say that they published their study in just some journal, because they want to emphasize how important their work is. Nobody is ever going to say something like "We did this study and then published it in this mediocre journal so and so"... --Randykitty (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's quite reasonable - thanks for the explanation. If I find something more neutral, I'll seek to include it. Otherwise I'll leave the commentary as it stands. Mostly Translucent (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have again removed the commentary, as its inclusion is bizarre and unfairly denigrating to the journal. As I mentioned hitherto, the two "criticisms" mentioned in this section come from non-scientists, and are both a reaction to the idea of doing research on aging or rejuvenation. Since the majority of biological journals (especially the most prestigious ones such as Nature, Cell, Science, or established, respected aging journals such as Aging Cell, Mechanisms of Ageing and Development or Experimental Gerontology) publish papers of very similar content to those in Rejuvenation Research, including a commentary from skeptical non-scientists with no background in biology is unwarranted. The argument that it should stand until a publication comes out specifically commenting on the journal and its appreciations is a poor one, as there would be little motivation for someone to publish a paper or article discussing the focus of Rejuvenation Research and how this is now a popular topic in biology.Mostly Translucent (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is sourced information and your reasons to remove it don't cut wood. Aging is a popular research topic, but very few serious researchers will say that they are doing rejuvenation research, which are two different things. I'm going to revert you yet again and will post notices at some WikiProjects to get the input of some uninvolved interested editors. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Input from uninvolved editors is certainly welcome. With regard to your comment, do you consider research on regeneration of damaged tissue to be rejuvenation? I have, for a journal club in two days, three papers on my desk published in Nature which investigated the regenerative ability of planarian flatworms, and why some closely related flatworms lack said regenerative ability. The authors specifically comment on their hopes for how this can be applied to regenerative potential in humans. I fail to see how this differs significantly from "rejuvenation", and why regeneration of damaged tissue is distinct from or more controversial than the idea of rejuvenating tissue which becomes damaged with age. Furthermore, I can name dozens of papers published last year in Nature, Science, and Cell which explicitly investigate mechanisms of aging/rejuvenation and discuss how their research may ultimately contribute to the extension of human healthspan. As I said before, Rejuvenation Research is far from unique in choosing to publish papers discussing these themes. Furthermore, just because you can provide a source for something, doesn't mean you should. This is especially the case here, where the two critical quotes included both come from non-scientists - specifically an online magazine writer and an anthropology graduate student. It's difficult to see how these two sources are especially relevant to a Wikipedia page about a highly technical, scientific journal in biology. Mostly Translucent (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would also like to draw attention to a highly cited paper published in Cell in 2010 by Rando Chang at Stanford University. The article is entitled "Aging, rejuvenation, and epigenetic reprogramming: resetting the aging clock." The link to the article can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412000049 In this article, the author states the following: "Clearly, any therapeutic goal of cell or tissue rejuvenation would aim to restore a “young adult” state from an elderly state, not rewinding the aging clock back to embryonic or even postnatal developmental stages when growth and morphogenesis are paramount and the systemic milieu is very different from that in the adult." Your comment that scientists do not openly pursue or discuss rejuvenation in a serious context is a false one. As someone in the field of aging who publishes aging papers and keeps up with the field (as it's my job as a PhD scientist to do so), I am telling you that your perspective on rejuvenation-type research as well as this journal is unjustified and not aligned with that of the aging research community. Mostly Translucent (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

{{unindent]]* I didn't say "no serious researcher", I said "very few" and the example you give apparently is one of them. as for your references to regeneration being research into rejuvenation, apparently I recently rejuvenated: I had a paper cut and the skin on my finger has regenerated completely. I'm not trying to be silly, but please, we're discussing scientific issues so we should be exact in the scientific terminology that we use. In any case, whether Cell, Science, Nature, whatever publish on rejuvenation or not is not at all an issue here. The question is whether or not sourced content should stay in the article or not. If rejuvenation research is suddenly getting so popular (and get me right, I'm at the age where rejuvenation would be highly desirable), then there may be references out there where somebody respectable say (in a reliable source) something like "Rejuvenation Research showed us the way" or "Rejuvenation Research is a source of a lot of work in this field". Find that and we can add it, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll leave this alone for now. My only point, which I may be conveying poorly, is that research on rejuvenation or life extension is not controversial and is not considered fringy by the community of aging scientists. This is exemplified by the number of well cited papers in respectable journals unabashedly exploring research into these areas. Since this is the case, including older commentary referring to the journal's focus (rejuvenation and life extension) as fringy is not especially pertinent, particularly because those comments came from non-bioscientists who may not have a solid understanding of what is fringy and what is not in the biological community. I find it unlikely that a neutral source will publish an article explicitly mentioning the journal of Rejuvenation Research but, if I encounter one, I will certainly bring attention to it.Mostly Translucent (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)]

*A recent study was able to reverse aspects of aging in mice, resulting in partial rejuvenation. Given this, I'm not sure it's relevant to include older commentary discussing rejuvenation-type research as "fringy". The link to an article discussing the study can be found here: http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/ageing-successfully-reversed-in-mice-human-trials-to-begin-next/149.142.103.128 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

After coming back to this and reviewing the sources, I would like to suggest removing one piece of commentary for an entirely novel reason. The quote "situated admittedly at the fringe of gerontology by taking the controversial stance that aging is ameliorable while demanding to be taken as serious science" comes from a paper published in the Journal of Aging Studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089040650800056X). The citation for this statement is a 2002 article published in the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine by Michael Fossel (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109454502317629228). Rejuvenation Research was originally named Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine, and Michael Fossel was the editor prior to Aubrey de Grey. In this article, Dr. Fossel discusses how he would like the journal to bridge gap between the lab and clinic, and how the journal is "...concerned with coming to a sound understanding of human aging and find out which applications have beneficial effects. Period." Not only does this included commentary apply to an older, differently named version of the journal, but there is no discussion of "demanding to be taken as serious science." The editorial is lamenting how, due to the presence of snake-oil salesman and frauds who try and market untested anti-aging therapies, there was (at least in 2002), a huge amount of distrust regarding any research investigating aging and life extension. This source is 12 years old, written by the past editor of the journal, and was written when the journal had a different name. For all of these reasons, and that aging research has exploded in the past decade (there are well over 100 different, accepted strategies to extend lifespan in various organisms), this commentary should not be included. It is beyond outdated, and including a source which sources the journal's own, previous editor 12 years ago seems horribly not pertinent. Mostly Translucent (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The following excerpts are quoted verbatim from the manuscript "Anti-aging science: The emergence, maintenance, and enhancement of a discipline" by Fishman et al, which can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528075/

From the abstract: "At first, biogerontologists' attempts to control human aging were regarded as a questionable pursuit due to: perceptions that their efforts were associated with the long history of charlatanic, anti-aging medical practices; the idea that anti-aging is a “forbidden science” ethically and scientifically; and the perception that the field was scientifically bereft of rigor and scientific innovation. The hard-fought establishment of the National Institute on Aging, scientific advancements in genetics and biotechnology, and consistent “boundary work” by scientists, have allowed biogerontology to flourish and gain substantial legitimacy with other scientists and funding agencies, and in the public imagination. In particular, research on genetics and aging has enhanced the stature and promise of the discipline by setting it on a research trajectory in which explanations of the aging process, rather than mere descriptions, have become a central focus. Moreover, if biogerontologists' efforts to control the processes of human aging are successful, this trajectory has profound implications for how we conceive of aging, and for the future of many of our social institutions."

From the introduction: "Anti-aging aspirations and efforts flourish today, perhaps more than ever, in the forms of: (1) commercial and clinical enterprises that offer anti-aging products, regimens, and treatments; and (2) research and development efforts of biogerontologists – scientists who study the biology of aging. Indeed, anti-aging has been identified as one of the specific topics to be considered at the 19th World Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics in Paris in 2009 (International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2007). Many biogerontologists also seek to achieve what historian Gerald Gruman (2003) has termed “prolongevity” – a significant extension of average human life expectancy and/or maximum life span without extending suffering and infirmity."

From a sub-section: "For instance, an important research goal in an official NIA strategic plan is “Unlocking the Secrets of Aging, Health and Longevity”; the plan declares that “The ultimate goal of this effort is to develop interventions to reduce or delay age-related degenerative processes in humans”"

I share this because this article is articulating a point, in published form, that I have made several times previously. While efforts to exploit mechanisms to extend lifespan and/or restore aged/damaged tissue to a younger/healthier state were initially viewed with suspicion and considered ambitiously fringe, these topics are now mainstream in the biological community. This article, which is from 2008 and more recent than either of the current commentary included for this journal, explains the progression of this anti-aging movement in detail and how what was once fringe is now accepted, legitimate science. For these reasons the commentary from 2005 should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Translucent (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, that article only mentions Rejuvenation Research once, and that only in-passing. I don't see how this should take precedence over sourced content. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

From the journal's website, "Rejuvenation Research publishes cutting edge-research on rejuvenation therapies in the laboratory and clinic." Rejuvenation is defined, per Wikipedia, as "the reversal of aging" and the "repair of the damage that is associated with aging or replacement of damaged tissue with new tissue." In the same year that Joseph Hooper, in his Popular Science article, labeled Rejuvenation Research as fringe, the paper entitled "Rejuvenation of aged progenitor cells by exposure to a young systemic environment" was published in Nature, one of the most prestigious biological journals. Last year, in 2014, the paper entitled "Young blood reverses age-related impairments in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in mice" was published in Nature Medicine. Like life extension research, which has become completely mainstream, research into rejuvenation is not fringe and has become accepted as commonplace in biomedical research. Labeling something as fringe is absurd if it is scientifically feasible and has been demonstrated to be attainable by the scientific community. Taken directly from the 2014 article entitled "Stem cell in the rough: repair quotient mined out of a bone marrow niche" published in Circulation Research: "Regenerative medicine aims to repair, replace, or restore diseased, damaged, or missing tissues." How is regenerative medicine, a field which many institutions dedicate an entire research department to, distinct from the goals of rejuvenation research? Rejuvenation research is simply regenerative medicine with a focus on reversing aging-related damage. As I have stated previously before, this commentary by Joseph Hooper should be removed.Mostly Translucent (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Self citation rate

I removed the remark about the self-citation rate of this journal. IRWolfie in the latest edit summary is mistaken: it is not referenced to the same source. Look at the previous edits: I updated the IF from the 2011 one to the 2012 one and changed the reference accordingly. The 43% figure refers to the 2011 IF. For 2012 it stands at 26%. That is still rather high, but not as exceptional any more, so I feel that it is not justified any more to mention this in this article, given that we don't usually mention this for other journals either (in previous years it was justified because the figure was ridiculously high - don't understand why TR never de-listed them for this). If you insist on keeping this phrase in, the 2012 figures should be used, not the 2011 ones. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the explanation, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The journal is back to its old habits, with a 42% self-citation rate: IF with self cites = 3.931, without self cites = 2.246... --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• In addition, looking at the citations the journal's articles published in different years get, one sees that there are actually not very many self-cites, except for the two years counting for the 2013 IF (2011 and 2012). Don't understand why Thomson Reuters tolerates this obvisous gaming of the system... --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to biennial

The link to biennial is not an error, because biennial is not simply a disambiguation page. The definition given at the beginning of bienniel (which is the reason I made the link) is not contained in any of the subsequent links on that page. --Ben Best 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)