Research Agendas on Ageing and Longevity: Linking Research and Policy—A Review and Discussion Article

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “ Research agendas on aging and longevity: linking research 2 and policy”. 

The importance of research evidence in aging and longevity policy is an extremely important element in global health policy making. Research and data collection and analysis for policy planning. Active aging through a variety of programs and education will reduce the stigma and functional disability of the elderly. Research programs in the field of gerontology allow us to learn about deficit areas as well as provide guidance for further research and proposed solutions. The authors conveyed in a very factual form what measures were taken to support research programs in the field of senior policy.  According to the reviewer, there is a lack of proposals for specific solutions as signposts for researchers in the field of gerontology, which could be used in further research work.

Verse 427 - The scope of research programs on decision-making remains unclear - what specifically do the authors have in mind?

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Research agendas on aging and longevity: linking research 2 and policy”.

The importance of research evidence in aging and longevity policy is an extremely important element in global health policy making. Research and data collection and analysis for policy planning. Active aging through a variety of programs and education will reduce the stigma and functional disability of the elderly. Research programs in the field of gerontology allow us to learn about deficit areas as well as provide guidance for further research and proposed solutions. The authors conveyed in a very factual form what measures were taken to support research programs in the field of senior policy.  According to the reviewer, there is a lack of proposals for specific solutions as signposts for researchers in the field of gerontology, which could be used in further research work.

Response to Comment 1:

Thank you for your efforts in reviewing the article and for the positive evaluation of the manuscript.

Comment 2:

Verse 427 - The scope of research programs on decision-making remains unclear - what specifically do the authors have in mind?

Response to Comment 2:

With the following formulation we have tried to emphasise the limited follow-up of research agendas, e.g. insufficient or no monitoring of their further development and use in the policy process: "However, the impact of research agendas on decision making remains unclear, as there is no documented confirmation of the use of research agendas in policy on ageing and longevity" (lines 503-505 of the revised manuscript).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this review, the authors provide a comprehensive and well-structured of the role of research agendas in bridging the fields of ageing, longevity, and policy. I noticed that the analysis of key international, regional, and national research agendas on ageing. The review also highlights both historical context and current developments. The authors also discuss how such agendas can inform evidence-based policies and identify persistent gaps between researchers and policymakers, offering insights on how best to narrow these divides.

In summary, the article is clearly written, logically organized, and thoroughly referenced. An important contribution has been made by demonstrating the breadth of existing initiatives (e.g., RAA-21, WHO frameworks, various national agendas) and illustrating how they align with global policy efforts such as the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA). The discussion of challenges such as the communication gap between science and policy—underlines the review’s practical relevance for both academic and policy communities.

Overall, I am happy to agree with this review published in the Journal of Ageing and Longevity in the current version.

Author Response

Comment 1:

In this review, the authors provide a comprehensive and well-structured of the role of research agendas in bridging the fields of ageing, longevity, and policy. I noticed that the analysis of key international, regional, and national research agendas on ageing. The review also highlights both historical context and current developments. The authors also discuss how such agendas can inform evidence-based policies and identify persistent gaps between researchers and policymakers, offering insights on how best to narrow these divides.

In summary, the article is clearly written, logically organized, and thoroughly referenced. An important contribution has been made by demonstrating the breadth of existing initiatives (e.g., RAA-21, WHO frameworks, various national agendas) and illustrating how they align with global policy efforts such as the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA). The discussion of challenges such as the communication gap between science and policy—underlines the review’s practical relevance for both academic and policy communities.

Overall, I am happy to agree with this review published in the Journal of Ageing and Longevity in the current version.

Response to Comment 1:

Thank you for your thorough and positive review of the submitted article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This review article addresses an important topic: the role of research agendas in linking research and policy in ageing and longevity. While the topic is highly relevant, the manuscript has several significant weaknesses that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication. I recommend a major revision, requiring a substantial restructuring of the manuscript.

Please refer to the attached file for further details.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Introductory Comment:

Dear Authors,

This review article addresses an important topic: the role of research agendas in linking research and policy in ageing and longevity. While the topic is highly relevant, the manuscript has several significant weaknesses that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication. I recommend a major revision, requiring a substantial restructuring of the manuscript.

Response to Introductory Comment:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your rigorous review of our manuscript.

In response to your comments, we would like to provide some general explanations about the intentions behind our work and the nature of our writing.

The overall aim of our article was to promote the value of research agendas as an instrument in designing, monitoring and implementing policies on ageing and longevity. A more ambitious task, in our view, was to highlight the key role of research agendas in bridging the gap between research and policy. Accordingly, we opted for an open literature or narrative review format, rather than a systematic review.

In accordance with the chosen format, we have not attempted to undertake a formal literature search. Our selection of materials was driven by two objectives: to demonstrate the diversity of research agendas on ageing and longevity (global, regional, national, sectorial) and to highlight their links, if any, to policy frameworks. We acknowledge that we did not intend to maximize the scope of the material collected, nor to analyse the content of the research agendas in a rigorous way. However, the open format of the literature review allowed us to adopt a commentary (discussion) approach throughout the article.

To reflect on the above features of our manuscript and in response to your comments, we have reformulated the typology of our work as a ‘review and discussion article’. Please also note that we have included some of the above explanations in the introductory section of the revised version of our article:

Introduction

The overall aim of this article is to promote the value of research agendas as an instrument in designing, monitoring and implementing policies on ageing and longevity. In addition, the authors have attempted to highlight the key role of research agendas in bridging the gap between research and policy.

This article falls into the category of an open literature or narrative review rather than a systematic review. In line with the chosen format, the authors did not conduct a formal literature search, while the selection of materials was driven by two objectives: to demonstrate the diversity of research agendas on ageing and longevity (global, regional, national, sectoral) and to highlight their links, if any, to policy frameworks. The authors intention was not to maximise the scope of the material collected, nor to provide a rigorous analysis of the content of the research agendas presented. However, the open format of the literature review allowed a commentary (discussion) approach to be adopted throughout the article.

The authors feel that it would be appropriate to acknowledge their involvement in the development of two international research agendas on ageing: the 2002 Research Agenda on Ageing for the Twenty-first Century [7] and the 2024 Agenda for Social Policy Research on Ageing [10], which are highlighted in this article. Involvement in the development of these research agendas has provided the authors of this article with invaluable experience of working with the world's leading researchers. We hope that this article will help to inform and facilitate the exploration of approaches and models for evidence-based policy on ageing and longevity. (Page 1, lines 22-43 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 1. Lack of structured abstract

The manuscript does not clearly indicate what has been synthesized as a result of the literature review. While the objective and overall discussion of the paper are conveyed,the key findings that readers can take away remain unclear.

Whether the results of the literature review should be included in the abstract depends on the paper’s objective and the journal’s editorial guidelines. However, in general, abstracts of review articles are expected to include the following elements:

・ Background (Introduction): Why is this topic important?

・ Objective: What is the purpose of the review?

・ Methods: How was the literature collected and analyzed? (This is essential for systematic reviews.)

・ Key Findings (Findings / Results): What are the main results and synthesized points derived from the review?

・ Conclusion and Implications: What conclusions can be drawn about the role of research agendas, and what are the policy implications?

The current abstract makes it clear that the paper discusses the importance of research agendas and their role; however, it does not explicitly state what key findings have been obtained from the review. As a result, it is difficult for readers to grasp the paper’s contribution. Therefore, a comprehensive revision of the abstract is necessary.

Response to Comment 1:

We have made minor changes to the abstract to indicate the format of the article:

Abstract: This discussion paper is based on a literature review of selected materials and devoted to the role of research agendas in linking research and policy in the field of ageing and longevity. After emphasising the importance of research evidence in international policy frameworks on ageing and de-fining the main parameters of research agendas, the authors turn to discussing how research agendas can play a key role in bridging research and policy on population ageing and individual longevity. Examples of international (global), regional and national research agendas are presented. Finally, the authors reflect on the benefits and current limitations of research agendas in supporting evidence-based policy and high-light the potential role of research agendas in developing appropriate and timely responses to the challenges and opportunities of population ageing and individual longevity. (Please refer also to the revised manuscript, p. 1, lines 9-10).

 

 

 

 

Comment 2. Lack of a clearly stated research objective and methodology

・ The paper is structured as a review article but does not provide clear research question or objective.

・ There is no description of the methodology used to select and analyze the reviewed literature. Without a defined approach, it is unclear how the authors synthesized their findings, reducing the reliability and transparency of the review.

Response to Comment 2:

Thank you for pointing this out.

We have added some explanations of the article’s aimes and methodology (type of review) in the introductory section of the revised version of our article (lines 22-43).

Comment 3. Overly lengthy and repetitive discussion and conclusion

・ The manuscript lacks conciseness, particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections.

・ The conclusion should succinctly summarize the key findings and provide clear policy implications, rather than repeating the discussion content.

Response to Comment 3:

In response to your comment, we have removed a lengthy quotation from the WHO document (lines 526-537 on page 13) and relocated it to Section 4 (lines 273-286). We also believe that the Conclusion fits the category of a literature (narrative) review, which typically includes elements of discussion throughout the text.

 

Comment 4. Lack of critical analysis

・ The review primarily describes existing research agendas but does not engage in a critical evaluation of their effectiveness, gaps, or controversies.

Response to Comment 4:

In our article we have attempted to demonstrate the diversity of research agendas on ageing and longevity (global, regional, national, sectoral) and to highlight their links to policy frameworks. We acknowledge that we did not intend to analyse the content of the research agendas in a rigorous way. Therefore, the critical analysis of the article focuses on the rather limited role of research agendas in informing the development and implementation of evidence-based policies on ageing and longevity. These patterns are briefly outlined in the introductory section of the article (lines 22-43).

 

Comment 5. Structural issues

・ A clear introduction should define the purpose of the review and outline the structure of the paper.

 ・ The review should be organized with distinct sections for methodology, key themes, and implications for policy.

Response to Comment 5:

Following your suggestion, we have added a brief introduction to the manuscript (lines 22-43).

We also believe that the nature of an open literature review, as opposed to a systematic review, does not require a highly structured presentation of the material.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments and suggestions for authors are stated in the Review report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:

The aim of paper:

The aim of the paper is clearly stated as analysing “the role of research agendas on ageing and longevity in linking research and policy” (line 8-9). The authors argue that research agendas should play an important role in shaping and guiding the generation of evidence, thereby contributing to the preparation of evidence-based policy. This is particularly important today, when increasingly populist agendas are promoting simplistic visions of possible solutions over a scientific approach to policy and practice solutions related to ageing (line 417-420). The authors point out that the formulation of such an agenda, including the definition of key research objectives and priority research areas, is crucial not only for researchers themselves but also for policy makers, organisations working with older people and other stakeholders.  they draw attention to the more than 40-year history of international action and policy proposals on ageing, beginning with the Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing (VIPAA) and the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA).

Areas of strength

• Presentation of key policies and recommendations for policy action on ageing and longevity, including international documents such as VIPAA, MIPAA and WHO's policy documents on ageing. They promote the central role of research evidence in designing, implementing and monitoring international and national ageing policies (line 72-73).
• Presentation of international research agendas on ageing and longevity, starting with the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2001 and the Research Agenda on Ageing for the Twenty-first Century, prepared by the United Nations Programme on Ageing and the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (2002). This was followed by an illustration of how Research Agenda on Ageing for the Twenty-first Century and MIPAA relate to each other in terms of research priorities.
• As part of the presentation of regional and national research agendas on ageing, the authors present the European Commission's contribution to the development of programmes on ageing and longevity. Among the priority areas identified are health research, active ageing and other ageing-related issues included in the Horizon 2020 programme. Within the EU, a number of programmes have been developed to address different aspects of ageing. Examples of national research agendas on ageing in other parts of the world include the achievements of China and Australia.

Response to Comment 1:

Thank you for your deep analysis of our article and its positive assessment.

 Comment 2:

Areas of weakness

The article, apart from its high research value, is also a form of self-promotion for the authors; one can assume, it was written on the basis of a book prepared by the same authors and published in 2024, which they write about on p. 6 (lines 214-216). I suggest inserting this information in the abstract or highlighting this thread in the opening section of the article.

Response to Comment 2:

In response to your highlighting of the areas of weakness, and following your suggestion, we have added a brief acknowledgement of the authors' involvement in developing research agendas on ageing (see the introductory section of the revised manuscript, lines 22-43).

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I read your work with great interest and the manuscript is all-around well written.

The topic is crucial in our society, especially because of the progressive growth of percentage of older population.

Before publication, I have a major revision that I would like you to make: you talk about a "review article" and proceed to cite some international documents over the years which are to be considered with great attention; although, you never specify some kind of methodology behind the choice or exclusion of some documents compared to others. Therefore, I would like you to include a small paragraph in which you explain what were the inclusion and exclusion criteria that you used to select which documents to cite.  

Author Response

Comment 1:

Dear Authors, I read your work with great interest and the manuscript is all-around well written.

The topic is crucial in our society, especially because of the progressive growth of percentage of older population.

Before publication, I have a major revision that I would like you to make: you talk about a "review article" and proceed to cite some international documents over the years which are to be considered with great attention; although, you never specify some kind of methodology behind the choice or exclusion of some documents compared to others. Therefore, I would like you to include a small paragraph in which you explain what were the inclusion and exclusion criteria that you used to select which documents to cite. 

Response to Comment 1:

Thank you for your positive comments and helpful suggestions.

In response to your suggestion for a major revision, we would like to offer the following explanation.

We chose an open literature or narrative review format for our article, rather than a systematic review. Consistent with the chosen format, we did not attempt to conduct a formal literature search. Our selection of material was driven by two objectives: to demonstrate the diversity of research agendas on ageing and longevity (global, regional, national, sectoral) and to highlight their links, if any, to policy frameworks. Such an approach has dictated the selection of documents cited, with inevitable omissions. 

To reflect the above characteristics of our manuscript, and in response to your comments, we have reformulated the typology of our work as a 'review and discussion article'. Please also note that we have included the above explanations in the introductory section of the revised version of our article (lines 22-43 of the revised manuscript).

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"Research agendas on ageing and longevity: linking research and policy" depict the role of research agendas in linking research and policy in the field of ageing and longevity, which is of important issue, especially during this area.

The paper is well written, presented, and structured. However, various areas and sections could be improved.

#Abstract:
The paragraph lacks of a methodology section. Which methodologies were used to develop this research agenda? Was it based on a literature review, expert consensus or other? Can you clarify whether the paper focuses more on policy recommendations or on identifying research gaps?

#Methods:

The methodology section lacks detail on how the research agenda was developed. Was this a systematic review, expert consensus, or a combination of approaches?

What was the process for selecting the research priorities? Were any specific inclusion or exclusion criteria applied to the studies or reports reviewed?

#Discussions:
Can you discuss the potential impact of these research agendas on different stakeholders, including government agencies, healthcare systems, and the general public? 

#Conclusion:
How do you envision the impact of these agendas on ageing populations in both the short-term and long-term? What is the expected timeline for the implementation of these research priorities in policy?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript meets international standards for scientific writing but would benefit from some revisions to enhance clarity and improve flow.

Overall, the English is appropriate for publication but requires minor adjustments to highlight its full potential.

Author Response

Comment 1:

"Research agendas on ageing and longevity: linking research and policy" depict the role of research agendas in linking research and policy in the field of ageing and longevity, which is of important issue, especially during this area.

The paper is well written, presented, and structured. However, various areas and sections could be improved.

Response to Comment 1:

Thank you for your positive assessment of our work.

 

Comment 2. Abstract:

The paragraph lacks of a methodology section. Which methodologies were used to develop this research agenda? Was it based on a literature review, expert consensus or other? Can you clarify whether the paper focuses more on policy recommendations or on identifying research gaps?

Response to Comment 2:

We used an open literature or narrative review format for our article, rather than a systematic review. In keeping with the chosen format, we did not attempt to conduct a formal literature search. Our selection of material aimed to demonstrate the diversity of research agendas on ageing and longevity and to highlight the available links to policy frameworks. Such an approach has dictated the selection of documents cited, with inevitable omissions. 

 

Comment 3. Methods:

The methodology section lacks detail on how the research agenda was developed. Was this a systematic review, expert consensus, or a combination of approaches?

What was the process for selecting the research priorities? Were any specific inclusion or exclusion criteria applied to the studies or reports reviewed?

Response to Comment 3:

As we noted in our response to your Comment 2, we used an open literature or narrative review format for our article, rather than a systematic review. To indicate the above characteristics of our manuscript, and in response to your comment, we have reformulated the typology of our work as a 'review and discussion article'. Please also note that we have included the explanations of the methodological approaches in the introductory section of the revised version of our article (lines 22-43 of the revised manuscript).

 

Comment 3. Discussions:

Can you discuss the potential impact of these research agendas on different stakeholders, including government agencies, healthcare systems, and the general public?

Response to Comment 3:

We have focused the discussion of the article on the role and implications of research agendas for policy development and implementation on ageing and longevity. Your very interesting suggestion to broaden the scope of the discussion would require a significant reorientation of the content and could be addressed in later publications.

 

Comment 4. Conclusion:

How do you envision the impact of these agendas on ageing populations in both the short-term and long-term? What is the expected timeline for the implementation of these research priorities in policy?

Response to Comment 4:

Thank you for these interesting reflections and questions. We have tried to answer some of these questions in the Conclusion of our article, while discussing the luck of follow-up mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and revising established research agendas (please refer to the texts on lines 538-545 of the revised manuscript). 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

This manuscript meets international standards for scientific writing but would benefit from some revisions to enhance clarity and improve flow.

Overall, the English is appropriate for publication but requires minor adjustments to highlight its full potential.

Response to the Comments on the Quality of English Language:

Thank you for your positive comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed response based on the comments.

Best regards,

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thanks for addressing my queries and providing adequate revisions.