ABSTRACT
In this essay the current and previous editors discuss the history of the Journal of Aging & Social Policy. In reviewing the past thirty years of publishing the Journal, one can see three phases: Phase 1 took pace during the first decade (1989–1997), Phase 2 covered the next decade and a half or so (1998–2015), and Phase 3 reflects the past five years, a period of continuing growth and success (2016-Present). Despite its inevitable challenges, the Journal of Aging & Social Policy overcame each and has arrived. Today, it is a well-respected Journal that attracts excellent scholarship from around the world, that is well-cited, and that has earned the Journal a commendable impact factor. The editors are proud of that evolution. However, success is never final. The Journal will require continued effective stewardship as it looks to the next thirty years and beyond.
Starting a multi-disciplinary journal today would be a difficult challenge. Questions of impact factors, ranking, and the influence of existing well-established journals within the core disciplines would be foremost factors to consider. Coupled with these concerns are issues of financial viability, staffing, production, and marketing. There would, of course, be the need to conduct initial examinations of incoming submissions, identify qualified and willing reviewers, make and communicate editorial decisions, and edit accepted manuscripts, all in time to complete the process for publication.
None of these essential and practical considerations were on the mind of Scott Bass when he approached Robert Morris about the creation of a journal at the interface of gerontology and public policy. In a naïve way, the initial editors believed that with an aging population before them, scholarship at the nexus of gerontology and public policy was a strategic place to land. Even more important in the minds of the creators was the desire to see the development of the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMass Boston) as a serious academic center in gerontology. They were convinced that a leading journal identified with the institution would be an important component in that development.
We now know, in hindsight, what W. Andrew Achenbaum (Citation1995) addressed in Crossing Frontiers – the risk faculty take in tarrying too far from their home discipline and the consequences for such an action when coming up for merit review or even tenure considerations. While social gerontology may be a faculty member’s passion, most faculty are tethered to a core discipline or profession – be it sociology, psychology, economics, political science, public health, etc. Publishing in the top journals in the home discipline or profession not only is viewed as significant by colleagues in the home department, but can assist the collective in subsequent departmental ranking schemes. Faculty who publish too far afield may earn the ire of colleagues seeking to improve the department’s standing in the discipline or profession. As Andrew Abbott (Citation2001) starkly writes in Chaos of Disciplines:
In the United States for the last century, the map of disciplinary social structures has been remarkably constant, even while the equivalent map of cultural structures – the pattern of knowledge itself – has greatly shifted. The departmental structure of the American university has remained largely unchanged since its creation between 1890 and 1910. (p.122)
Imagine, here were Bass and Morris considering a journal at the boundary of two distinct fields that were already multi-disciplinary. Gerontology with having its own respected multi-disciplinary journals, The Gerontologist and Research on Aging being two, and public policy with an array of well-known multi-disciplinary journals including the Journal of Public Policy and Journal of Policy Analysis & Management. To succeed, Bass and Morris’ new journal would need to overcome barriers to crossing disciplinary boundaries not only within gerontology but between gerontology and public policy, an almost entirely different field at the time.
When Bass met Morris, UMass Boston had a fledging Gerontology Program initially funded in 1980 by a grant from the Administration on Aging and a relatively small Gerontology Institute operating with annual state support since 1984. Through a series of service-related research projects, the program and Institute had developed local support, but very little academic recognition among the many scholars in Boston or nationally. Stature and recognition, a sine qua non in higher education, was the Holy Grail which Bass and the leadership of UMass Boston sought.
UMass Boston was the urban campus of the Massachusetts higher education system – its flagship campus was the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. UMass Amherst was the primary public doctoral granting institution in the state and in an effort to avoid duplication and competition within the state, it sought to restrict doctoral expansion at UMass Boston and elsewhere. Where UMass Boston saw opportunity was in cross-disciplinary fields which the flagship campus did not offer. Hence there was interest in gerontology as a possible area of expansion among the leadership of UMass Boston.
At that time private universities had a policy of mandatory retirement for those faculty aged 70 years. Robert Morris, past president of the Gerontological Society of America and professor at Brandeis University, turned 70 and was required to retire despite his vitality.
In 1985, the year following the establishment of the Gerontology Institute, Bass made a pitch to Morris over lunch regarding the help needed to establish a solid academic foundation at UMass Boston, and asked Morris to join him in building a serious scholarly enterprise. To Bass’ surprise, Morris agreed on the spot and went to work. The first article they did jointly was “The Elderly as Surplus People,” published in The Gerontologist in 1986. Soon Morris was on board with an ambitious triadic strategy: (1) building gerontology scholarship at UMass Boston by hiring accomplished senior faculty allied with the Gerontology Institute and whose permanent faculty positions would eventually be housed in a Gerontology Department (the Gerontology Department was established with permanent faculty positions in 1988); (2) offering a PhD program in gerontology (the PhD program came to fruition in 1989); and (3) publishing a first-rate journal in the area of aging and social policy. Each would take time and effort.
In reviewing the past thirty years of publishing the Journal, one can see three phases: Phase 1 took pace during the first decade (1989–1997), Phase 2 covered the next decade and a half or so (1998–2015), and Phase 3 reflects the past five years, a period of continuing growth and success (2016-Present). Today, JASP is a well-respected journal attracting excellent scholarship from around the world, that is well cited, and that has earned the Journal a commendable impact factor.
Phase 1: the founding
Within the first year of working together Bass and Morris decided to launch a journal as there were no journals focused at the interface of gerontology and social policy. In retrospect, this was a bit of an audacious move. As a start they needed to build an Editorial Board, find a publisher, and ensure that there was a need. Over the next few years they started the Journal of Aging and Social Policy and secured a publishing contract with Haworth Press. Starting a new journal that is well-regarded among scholars is not easy. Scholars want to make sure their work reaches other influential scholars and becomes widely read and cited. Such is often hard for a start-up journal. But, not if the founder – Robert Morris – is one of the luminaires in the field and willing to tap into his many contacts. Due largely to Morris’ efforts, the original Editorial Board involved leaders in gerontology whose primary interest was in social policy (). The stature of the JASP’s original Board members is reflected in their inclusion in Achenbaum and Albert’s (Citation1995) volume, Profiles in Gerontology, which provided biographical descriptions of notable gerontologists at the time.
Figure 1. Inaugural masthead, Journal of Aging & Social Policy.
Morris also contacted many of his associates whom he had known over the years to contribute to the Journal. All seemed excited about the effort and indicated their interest. Practitioners as well as scholars would be welcomed, and the Journal would be sure to include those working in the field from other nations. It was always intended as a peer review journal based on blind and independent reviews.
From the outset the Journal would begin with a commentary called “From the Editors”, it would include a regular “Book Review” section, and it would host an “International View” section. To encourage development of the international dimension, Bass and Morris invited an Australian scholar, Anna Howe, to join the Editorial Board, soon followed by another Australian scholar, John McCallum. They also invited Bleddyn Davies, a British scholar, to serve as the initial International Editor for the Journal. Davies would subsequently join the Editorial Board, succeeded by Charlotte Nusberg, from the International Federation of Ageing, in this role. The brief, but timely inaugural opening “From the Editors” essay is reproduced in and was written over thirty years ago. It is an ambitious statement born by idealism and, upon reflection, was beyond the scope of an academic journal, but remains a noble vision.
Figure 2. Inaugural editorial, Journal of Aging & Social Policy.
To the surprise of Bass and Morris, more submitted manuscripts to the inaugural issue than needed. So the idea of a double issue was launched. In fact, in the first year, 1989, JASP had enough high-quality submissions for two double issues. A listing of the well-known contributors and the articles they submitted for the initial issue are summarized in . What was particularly interesting was the ability to secure an essay from the U.S. Senator Claude Pepper, who was a tireless advocate for the elderly.
Figure 3. Inaugural table of contents, Journal of Aging & Social Policy.
To augment JASP, a pipeline of future scholars working in aging and social policy was envisioned, hence the importance of a doctoral program. The significance of a doctoral program in the field would aid in the reputation of UMass Boston and the Journal. In addition, the placement of the Journal at UMass Boston would be a distinctive opportunity for doctoral students at UMass Boston to be engaged with journal production. Bass and Morris believed that hosting a leading journal in the field would reinforce UMass Boston as a distinguished institution for advanced study and be a source of pride in the recruitment of PhD students.
With Bass and Morris engaged and Morris’ initial network, JASP seemed immune from the inevitable start-up challenges facing any new journal, let alone a multi-disciplinary one. Blindly unaware of the broader circumstance facing a new journal, the first five years went comparatively well for the journal, but reality eventually materialized in the way of the day-to-day challenges managing a journal before online submission, review, and production processes became commonplace.
During the Journal’s first decade, James O’Brien and then Jill Norton served as Managing Editor. Ms. Norton was a full-time employee of the Gerontology Institute. She devoted approximately half of her time to her editorial responsibilities. Ms. Norton served the Journal during the period in which journals communicated with authors and reviewers through paper. Authors submitted manuscripts in writing. Copies of manuscripts were mailed to reviewers and reviews were submitted on paper mailed to the editor. Ms. Norton was surrounded physically by manuscripts and correspondence with authors, reviewers, and publishers. Papers moved through the editorial process at their own pace. In many cases months and even years elapsed because reviewers were slow to submit their reviews and authors were also slow in revising their manuscripts. A stretched-out publication process added to the number of manuscripts that were in the folders that surrounded Ms. Norton’s desk.
Phase 2: firming up the foundations
Bass and Morris served as co-editors until 1996 when Bass accepted a senior academic administrative position at the University of Maryland Baltimore County and Frank Caro, a UMass Boston Gerontology colleague, then stepped in as a third editor and eventually replaced Bass. Robert Morris continued to serve as co-editor until his death in 2005. In 2007, Volume 19, Issue 3, the Journal published a special set of essays commemorating Morris’s contributions as a gerontologist.
Caro led the Journal during a more challenging time: one where the initial exuberance had worn-off and the competition for article placement by contributors become more evaluative and selective. The competition from journals with longer histories and higher ranking was a factor with which to contend. As it evolved, the Journal primarily attracted manuscripts from scholars and largely reached an academic audience. Few articles were submitted by those engaged in the practice of gerontology. The majority of manuscripts presented research findings that illuminated policy issues, however. Much less common were commentaries that introduced new policy ideas or analyzed policy issues. The topics covered by the Journal were very wide-ranging.
The modest number of manuscripts with strong policy content was partially a reflection of the Journal’s publication timeline. For fast-moving policy issues, the Journal’s timeline was simply too slow. The Journal’s manual review process was laborious and the publisher’s process of dealing with manuscripts after acceptance was sluggish. During this period, electronic publication was not even on the horizon. The pace of academic publishing was better suited to reporting of research that examined the consequences of policy or provided broad background perspectives on emerging policy issues, rather than the timely response to or commentary on policy issues in “real time.”
The limited amount of policy content was also a reflection on the background of academic gerontologists. With strong training in research methods and quantitative analysis, academic gerontologists were well equipped to conduct research that illuminates policy issues. Academic gerontologists were less well equipped to analyze the relative merits of policy options.
Despite a shortage of manuscripts, the editors insisted on limiting the Journal to articles with some explicit policy content. They insisted on manuscripts that identified an explicit policy issue in the introduction and included policy implications in the discussion of findings, an emphasis that continues to this day. They deflected otherwise meritorious articles that reported findings of basic research but lacked policy content.
Willingness to publish special issues became a distinguishing feature. In part, the special issues were necessary to generate sufficient editorial content. In some instances the themes of special issues were chosen by the editors. In other instances, special issues were proposed by colleagues, especially members of the Editorial Board. After the Journal had established a reputation for publishing special issues, Caro was approached increasingly with proposals for potential content. The topics of the special issues call attention to the Journal’s heavy emphasis on long-term care policy. “Resident Satisfaction with Long-Term Care Services,” “Resistance to Nursing Home Constraints,” “The Woodwork Effect,” and “Long-term Care Policy in the Pacific Rim,” are all special issues devoted entirely to long-term care.
The Journal’s international role developed to a far greater extent than anticipated at the outset. As indicated above, Morris and Bass laid the groundwork for the international component by creating an “International View” section, appointing international scholars to the Editorial Board, and engaging an International Editor. Bass organized a special issue on Japan that was published in 1996. Bass and Morris encouraged editorial board member Phoebe Liebig to edit a special issue on India that was published in 2003. Eventually, scholars from many countries began contributing unsolicited manuscripts. This was reflected, at the time, in Volume 12 published in 2001 in which manuscripts from Canada, Denmark, Israel (2), Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom were published. The very strong international presence has continued ever since with some issues constituting entirely of international content. This growth reflects many forces including demographic trends, aging policy development in many countries, and increasing scholarly attention to aging policy in many countries.
Robert Geary served as JASP’s second Managing Editor from 2000 through 2015. Like his predecessor, Geary was a full-time employee of the Gerontology Institute who devoted half his time to the Journal. Geary served the Journal through two technological transitions. In the first, electronic communication replaced paper communication. Paper submissions were phased out in favor of electronic submissions as email attachments. Communication with reviewers was also done electronically. During Geary’s final years with the Journal, Internet-based editorial management was introduced and replaced the email communication. Geary flourished during the period in which email communication with authors and reviewers was dominant. Geary maintained extensive communication with a wide network of authors and reviewers. Because he relished copy editing, he played an extensive role in shaping of manuscripts that needed improvement in writing. Geary was particularly active in assisting some international authors with writing in English. During this period, the Journal was constrained by page limits established by the publisher. Geary did extensive work with authors to tighten manuscripts. Tighter manuscripts meant that more articles could be published.
In 2007, Haworth Press was acquired by Taylor and Francis, a publisher based in the United Kingdom. Perhaps coincidentally, the acquisition by an international publisher occurred during the period in which the number of international submissions to the Journal increased dramatically. Taylor and Francis eventually brought the Journal into a contemporary Internet-based editorial management system. When the system worked as designed, the tracking of manuscripts became easier. There was much less need for authors and reviewers to have human communication with a managing editor.
Caro continued editing the Journal after his retirement as a faculty member in 2008. Working with Kelly Fitzgerald, a graduate of the UMass Boston gerontology PhD program, he drew special satisfaction from organizing a special double issue on age-friendly cities published in 2014 (Volume 26, Issues 1 & 2). The issue had substantial international content. As a volunteer, Caro had organized an age-friendly city initiative in the municipality where he lived. With that special issue, JASP quickly established itself as a journal receptive to articles on that topic.
During Caro’s tenure as editor, the gerontology educational programs at UMass Boston and the Gerontology Institute went through significant administrative changes. Most notably, the Gerontology graduate programs and the Gerontology Institute became part of a newly created John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies in 2003. The rationale for the creation of the new school was to strengthen the University’s graduate education on policy. The administrative change had no impact on the operations of the Journal. Throughout the Journal’s history, University administrators consistently have viewed JASP as an important asset for the University and ensured it was supported throughout any organizational changes.
Phase 3: accelerating the growth trajectory
In 2016, a UMass Boston colleague, Edward Miller, succeeded Caro as Editor-in-Chief of JASP. Miller had been a long-time contributor (6 articles), reviewer (12 years), and Editorial Board member (7 years) who previously edited a 2012 special issue, “Critical Essays on Health Care Reform: The Affordable Care Act, Long-Term Care, and Elders.” The Journal was in a strong position when Miller took over the reins; it truly had a global reach, serving as a critical resource for researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and others involved or interested in population aging and its implications for policy and practice internationally. Miller’s emphasis has thus been on continuing to grow the Journal based on the firm foundations established by his predecessors.
The first order of business was to put together the new editorial team. Michael Gusmano, a scholar from Rutgers School of Public Health and the Hastings Center, agreed to serve as International Editor. With a notable international portfolio, Gusmano had established himself as a leading researcher on the economic, political, and social consequences of global aging. The Journal’s Managing Editor, Robert Geary, retired at the same time as Caro. Like Caro, Geary continued to provide much appreciated advice and guidance during the early days of the editorial transition. Sadly, Geary would soon pass away (Caro & Miller, Citation2017). UMass Boston doctoral students have since filled this position, beginning with Corina Ronneberg (2016–2017) and then Elizabeth Simpson (2018-Present), fulfilling one of Bass and Morris’ original visions for the Journal to provide a critical source of experience for students in UMass Boston’s PhD program in Gerontology.
The second order of business was to modify the editorial management system to best meet the Journal’s needs. A system, for example, was put into place whereby authors are asked to choose from a comprehensive list of classifications in addition to their own keywords. Prospective reviewers are also now asked to identify which classifications best describe their research expertise and interests. The aim in providing this additional information is to better enable the editorial team to match reviewers with the content of the manuscripts submitted. In addition, Taylor and Francis streamlined the manuscript submission process, requiring authors to input substantially less information when making their submissions. A comprehensive technical check process was also established whereby each manuscript undergoes an initial review for content, formatting, and writing. Authors are asked to correct identified issues before their manuscripts are assigned to an editor. Commonly identified issues include insufficient policy content, limited description of research methods, the need to identify and discuss study limitations, and the quality of the writing.
The third order of business was to heighten the Journal’s visibility and impact by growing the number of submissions, raising the citation index, and enhancing media coverage. The first step in doing so was to expand the Editorial Board, in part, to promote greater investment in the Journal among a larger cohort of scholars in the field. Thus, the Board has grown from 39 members in 2015 to 77 members currently, including ten international members from the United Kingdom (3), Israel (2), Canada (2), Taiwan (2), Australia (1), and Hong Kong (1). To create a sense of camaraderie and to solicit feedback and input from the Editorial Board, the Journal held its first “virtual” Editorial Board meeting in October 2017; an in-person meeting was held at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America in November 2018; a second “virtual” meeting was held in May 2019.
The second step in extending JASP’s reach and impact was to expand the array of submission options available to prospective contributors. The Journal has solicited research articles, commentaries, and book reviews since the beginning, but now also considers brief reports, research syntheses, and guest editorials called Perspectives. Also, the page allowance for qualitative research manuscripts was increased to 27 pages from the 22 pages permitted for research articles to further encourage such submissions.
The third step in growing the Journal was to establish a firm presence on social media. Increasingly, interactive web-based platforms are critical for raising awareness of journal content and expanding the scope of social networking opportunities to researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other readers. Thus, JASP has been rolled out on three social media platforms, including Twitter: (https://twitter.com/AgingPolicy), Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/JofASP), and LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/5164994).
The fourth step in raising the Journal’s visibility was to continue to identify and publish special issues on both emerging and timely public policy issues that intersect with the world of gerontology. A special issue on an emerging topic is reflected in, “Very Old Age as a Global Challenge: Lessons from an International Network of Centenarian Studies,” published in 2016. A special issue published on a topic of immediate widespread salience and concern is reflected in, “Aging Policy & Politics in the Trump Era: Implications for Older Americans,” published in 2019. A special issue on housing with services for older adults is currently in the planning stages.
Together, these activities have helped to accelerate JASP’s growth trajectory and impact over the last several years. The number of original manuscript submissions annually has grown from 85 and 84 in 2014 and 2015, respectively, to 103 in 2016, 173 in 2017, and 186 in 2018. This growth has been driven by an increase in both domestic and international submissions, though the balance of submissions has increasingly favored those coming from outside the United States. In 2018, approximately three-quarters (73%) of submissions were international, up from two-thirds (66.7%) in 2017.Footnote1 During these two years manuscripts were submitted by more than 50 countries with approximately 35.1% deriving from the U.S., 40.3% from Asia, and 19% from Europe; fewer submissions were made from Australia (3.6%), Africa (1.3%), and South America (0.7%). The editorial team would welcome a larger number of submissions from the global South.
Concomitant with the rise in submissions has been a steady increase in the Journal’s impact factor, from 0.78 in 2014 to 1.00 in 2015, 1.256 in 2016 and 1.512 in 2017. To accommodate the additional volume the publisher agreed to increase the pages budgeted to the Journal from 432 spread across four issues in 2016 to 500 spread across five issues beginning in 2017. The page budget will increase once again to 600 pages when the number of issues rise to 6 annually in 2020.
Conclusion
After thirty years, the Journal of Aging & Social Policy has arrived as a thriving and respected academic publication. UMass Boston is now the foremost producer of Gerontology PhDs in the country, drawing students from across the United States and internationally. The doctoral program is anchored by a globally renowned faculty with expertise in a range of social science disciplines and gerontologically-related research topics, all linked and connected to a Department of Gerontology and, as originally envisioned, a Gerontology Institute that serves as the home-base for individual faculty members’ scholarship but also hosts several centers, including the Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging, LeadingAge Long-Term Services and Supports Center at UMass Boston, Pension Action Center, and Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Housing UMass Boston’s Gerontology Program within the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy & Global Studies further validates the founding editor’s decision and foresight in creating a journal at the nexus of public policy and gerontology.
The editors have learned that a leading journal takes more than the engagement of a luminary academic or an ambitious faculty member. A journal requires attentive stewardship, vigilance, and, most importantly, written contributions that are valued by its academic readership. Scholars reading a journal must find the work included to be of sufficient merit that it is referenced in their own publications. Hence, a reinforcing cycle is created by which influential work is submitted, published, and cited, encouraging others to make the journal the placement of choice for their work. As the cycle continues, a journal’s impact factor grows, the number of submissions and selectivity increases, and the journal becomes ever more respected.
The Journal of Aging & Social Policy is fortunate to have had effective leadership over thirty years, resulting in the Journal that exists today. The Journal has its deep roots in decisions and events that emerged in Massachusetts a decade before the inaugural issue. No major strategic plan existed and no major donor was there at the beginning. It started when the University of Massachusetts Office of the President saw an opportunity to secure a grant from the Administration on Aging to create a system-wide umbrella for gerontology. A dean at UMass Boston (Murray Frank) made a cold call to Bass, who at age 29, was asked to assist in the proposal preparation – at the time Bass was not in the field nor employed at UMass Boston. The sequence of events that unfolded and the efforts to build the Journal are part of our history. From a policy perspective, the Journal, the Gerontology Institute, and the PhD Program in Gerontology in the early years were a function of sheer determination rather than a deep well of distinguished faculty resources, a large endowment, or a multi-level approval in a campus strategic plan. Seizing on opportunity, good fortune, serendipity, and talented guidance over the years is what actually took place.
Despite its inevitable challenges, the Journal overcame each and has arrived. We are proud of that evolution. However, success is never final. The Journal of Aging and Social Policy will require continued effective stewardship as it looks to the next thirty years and beyond.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. These calculations exclude 11 manuscripts in 2017 and 43 manuscripts in 2018 for which the country of origin could not be determined.
References
- Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Achenbaum, W. A. (1995). Cross-Frontiers: Gerontology emerges as a science. Ann Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Achenbaum, W. A., & Albert, D. M. (1995). Profiles in gerontology: A biographical dictionary. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
- Caro, F., & Miller, E. A. (2017). Remembering Robert Geary. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 29(1), 1–2. doi:10.1080/87568225.2016.1243389