Mirror,mirror on the wall,who is the fairest of them all?

The 2016 International RANZCP Congress of Psychiatry in Hong Kong in May of this year was a wonderful meeting from start to finish. The speakers, the setting and the program topics were both engaging and interesting, and the Convenors of the Congress (Professors Hopwood and Castle) and the Scientific Program Committee Chair (Professor Everall) deserve to be congratulated. Indeed everyone involved in this Congress should be suitably proud of its success.

As Editor of ANZJP, the Congress was an opportunity to meet, both formally (at the SAGE stand) and informally, those who read and regularly contribute to the Journal; and the feedback I received was heartening at many levels. The Journal continues to be read with great enthusiasm, and the sections that seem to retain greatest appeal remain the Editorials, in particular the Debates, along with correspondence, especially in the form of Commentaries. Most readers wanted more of these types of brief articles in each issue. Several Fellows also pointed out that they appreciated being directed to ‘essential reading’ in the form of pre-selected Key Reviews and Editor’s Choice articles; the main reason being that these enable busy clinicians to ‘sample science’ without the need to read the abstracts of all the articles in an issue. For many, this signposting persuades them to read articles outside their usual/immediate area of interest. For example, one doctor said, “I wouldn’t normally even consider reading a meta-analysis paper… but the paper on coffee consumption and risk of depression turned out to be very interesting… and I only looked at it because it was marked Editor’s Choice” (Wang et al., 2016). Needless to say, this conversation took place over mugs of coffee and so all concerned felt suitably smug.

Another aspect raised frequently in discussions with Fellows was the publication of articles addressing controversial topics in psychiatry. This is an important focus for the Journal as outlined in the first issue of this year (Malhi, 2016), and overall it was felt that the topics featured in ANZJP have been clinically relevant and of importance to both psychiatrists in clinical practice and to the profession as a whole. Furthermore, the debates were regarded as balanced and informative, although some Fellows suggested more international involvement to provide a broader set of perspectives. It is for these types of issues and matters of ethics in publishing that the Journal and its editorial team seek advice from the Advisors to the Editor; all of whom are editors of other psychiatry journals. In recent years this has proven invaluable – especially when seeking alternative viewpoints and expert referees for articles on contentious topics. To boost this capacity further I am pleased to announce the addition of Professor Andrea Cipriani from Oxford, UK, editor of Evidence Based Mental Health, Professor Ida Hageman from Copenhagan, Denmark, editor of Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Professor Matcheri Keshavan from Boston, USA, editor of the Asian Journal of Psychiatry, and Professor Scott Patten from Calgary, Canada, editor of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Other sections of the editorial board that have grown are the Statistical & Analytical Advisors, the Australia and New Zealand Advisory Board and the Trainee Advisory Board.

The Journal is also developing a novel Reflections section that will feature a number of new kinds of articles. The first of these will be called Erudite Encounters. These brief pieces will attempt to distil advice and knowledge from eminent and experienced academics in psychiatry. Their purpose is twofold: first to recognize the seminal contributions of these individuals to psychiatry, and secondly to encourage interest in academia and to show that the careers and drivers for those that are successful are diverse and interesting. We begin in this issue with Paul Grof – a mentor to many, and an inspiration to many more. In later issues, the Reflections section will also feature articles examining psychiatry as depicted in film and other media and forms of communication, and also employ more light-hearted satirical means of highlighting issues of importance in psychiatry.

In this month’s issue one of the themes is communication and, whilst all forms of communication are potentially impactful, possibly none is more important to psychiatry than words – aspects of which are discussed by Hegerl (this issue). Their importance is also evident in the ongoing exchange of words in the ‘the longest debate’ (Levy, this issue), which argues the topic of methylphenidate use for ADHD. Another thought-provoking and somewhat challenging article is the editorial written by the Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, who laments the seemingly inevitable leeching out of compassion from clinical care provided by the NHS in the UK (Bhui, this issue).

Alongside such emotive topics this month’s issue of the Journal provides high-quality research articles and informative reviews on a range of diverse topics from macrophages and trauma to the experience of voices across different disorders.