  This paper investigates differences in characteristics across publication
types for aging-related genetic research. We utilized bibliometric data for
five model species retrieved from authoritative databases including PubMed.
Publications are classified into types according to PubMed. Results indicate
substantial divergence across publication types in attention paid to
aging-related research, scopes of studied genes, and topical preferences. For
instance, comparative studies and meta-analyses show a greater focus on aging
than validation studies. Reviews concentrate more on cell biology while
clinical studies emphasize translational topics. Publication types also
manifest variations in highly studied genes, like APOE for reviews versus GH1
for clinical studies. Despite differences, top genes like insulin are
universally emphasized. Publication types demonstrate similar levels of
imbalance in research efforts to genes. Differences also exist in bibliometrics
like authorship numbers, citation counts, etc. Publication types show distinct
preferences for journals of certain topical specialties and scope of
readership. Overall, findings showcase distinct characteristics of publication
types in studying aging-related genetics, owing to their unique nature and
objectives. This study is the first endeavor to systematically depict the
inherent structure of a biomedical research field from the perspective of
publication types and provides insights into knowledge production and
evaluation patterns across biomedical communities.
