| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cell Death Research Group, Division of Biochemical Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
1 Correspondence: Cell Death Research Group, Division of Biochemical Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nobels väg 13, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: bengt.fadeel{at}ki.se
In their recently published manuscript, Falagas et al. (1)
purport to study at what age biomedical scientists do their "best work." Hence, based on the assessment of the total number of citations of 1500 articles published by 300 "randomly selected", highly cited scientists in six different biomedical areas of research, the authors suggest that "high quality scientific productivity" peaks at the ages of 30–35 years, with significant decreases from approximately 40 years of age and beyond. However, it must be noted that the authors chose to limit their analysis to articles for which the researcher was listed as first author. Therefore, I submit that the study merely reflects the fact that biomedical scientists, on average, are likely to work as post-doctoral researchers during the period of 30–35 years of age, and the study therefore does not necessarily reflect accurately on the association between age and "high-quality research output" or "landmark scientific contributions."
Indeed, it is axiomatic in the biomedical sciences that the first author position on a manuscript is held by the graduate student or post-doc who performed the work at the bench (and contributed to the conception and development of the theoretical foundation of the study), whereas more senior researchers are usually positioned as last authors of the manuscript. The observation that "older scientists" (>40 years) also may contribute as first authors on some publications, according to the study of Falagas et al. (1)
, is likely explained by the fact that the order of authors is often reversed on review articles (as opposed to original articles); i.e., the senior scientist now becomes the first author. Such review articles are also frequently cited in the literature, and this could thus have contributed to the outcome of the above-mentioned analysis.
Disclosure: For the record, I am 40 years old.
FOOTNOTES
Title taken from Matthew 19:30, King James Bible.
The opinions expressed in editorials, essays, letters to the editor, and other articles comprising the Up Front section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FASEB or its constituent societies. The FASEB Journal welcomes all points of view and many voices. We look forward to hearing these in the form of op-ed pieces and/or letters from its readers addressed to journals{at}faseb.org.
REFERENCES
Related Article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
