ANZJP publishing policy: On bears,birds and bonfires

Editing the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (ANZJP) is a privilege and pleasure, but one that is weighed down by enormous responsibility. Therefore, the invitation to serve another term has prompted me to pause and take stock, as did turning 50 towards the end of last year. My initial goal when taking up the reins of the Journal was to increase its impact, both clinically and within research circles – especially internationally – and to provide engaging and informative reading material in a variety of formats that spans a range of topical issues in psychiatry.

Over the last 5 years, the Journal has introduced new sections that allow authors to voice ideas, present concepts and express perspectives, views and opinions in a candid but measured manner. Correspondence in the Journal has increased, as have discussion and debate, and the Journal regularly publishes important articles that tackle significant issues concerning the practice and understanding of psychiatry. In recent years, this has been increasingly recognised, both formally and informally, and it is heartening to hear from colleagues at home and abroad that the Journal is now viewed as ‘the journal that provides a unique and interesting perspective’. For many international readers and contributors, this means that ANZJP serves as a valuable foil to the dominant European and American influences on psychiatry.

So, what is the purpose of the Journal? I believe it can be put succinctly as follows:

‘The ANZJP!

If we see a bear, we poke it,

If we see a fire, we stoke it,

If we see a turkey, we choke it.

The ANZJP!’

Poke the bear

Nowadays, far too many issues in psychiatry are considered either taboo, or too difficult to tackle, because they are embroiled in politics or clinical sensitivities. Many issues concerning how we conduct the ‘business’ of psychiatry and determine the best models for diagnosis and treatment are considered off limits. This has led to stagnation and acceptance of views that are dated, incorrect or both. Challenging the ideas of ‘thought leaders’ is generally discouraged, and issues – even critical ones – are usually left alone if they have the potential to cause offence or encroach on the sensibilities of others. In other words, ‘the bear’ is allowed to do as it pleases and around it we play dead.

This is not the position of the ANZJP. We feel it is important to tackle these issues and instead actively ‘poke the bear’ – so that the dormant issue is well and truly alive and awake – even if the resulting discussion causes some discomfort.

Stoke the fire

Other issues in psychiatry are starved of ‘light’. They are given little attention and smoulder in the shadows, burning slowly because of a lack of oxygen. Often, these are important matters that simply need some consideration. The ANZJP aims to shed light on these forgotten and overlooked areas by ‘stoking the fire’ until it burns brightly and illuminates them. The heat this creates may fire up some people, stirring passions, but this is a relatively modest cost if it results in critical issues being seen more clearly.

Choke the turkey

It is important to promote and celebrate good ideas that succeed. Failure can also offer valuable opportunities to learn. However, poor science and bad practices that are simply wrong (turkeys) need to be identified and stamped out. The ANZJP aims to choke such turkeys and ensure that unhelpful or self-serving efforts are expunged. Naturally, this may upset those who run clinical and research ‘turkey farms’, of which there are, sadly, a seemingly growing number.

Use your words

To exact change in psychiatry, it is important to question, challenge the zeitgeist and put forward alternative models. There are many channels through which this can be done, for example, the many varieties of social media. However, by contrast to these comparatively unregulated environments, the Journal provides a structured setting in which, alongside opinion and debate, authors are required to draw on evidence, data and substantiated information. This is a process that is quite different to simply venting one’s views.

In this vein, this month’s issue of the ANZJP carries several debate pieces, including two by Professor McGorry (McGorry et al., this issue) that tackle, head on, articles published in the Journal last year. Professor Porter and colleagues also provides a thought-provoking Editorial (Porter et al., this issue) on the inpatient treatment of mood disorders.

Nonetheless, it is still the case that many people’s first instincts are to write to me personally as Editor, rather than debating an issue or expressing views within the pages of the Journal. This approach means that interesting and potentially useful contributions do not get captured in the formal correspondence or shared more widely. As we begin 2016, I would like once more to urge those of you with strong views to express them formally by making a submission to the Journal and so contribute to an ongoing discussion that will enrich our profession.