A Vote of Thanks

He almost never became editor of this Journal. Several years before the appointment, Sidney (‘Sid’) Bloch and his wife, Felicity, were returning to Oxford from London, having just seen a play. Gordon Parker was at the wheel of the two-seater Porsche in which they were travelling, and the Blochs were squeezed into baby seats in the back. Professor Parker recalls that a long and vigorous discussion took place between the Blochs about the relative merits of the play and that he was tempted, sorely tempted, to press the car's ejector button. For a variety of reasons, we can be glad that Professor Parker desisted; among them, in Professor Bloch's time at the helm of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (ANZJP), the ANZJP went from strength to strength, established itself as a leading psychiatric journal and became a ‘must read’ for psychiatrists and trainees.

Perhaps it is unfair to revisit Professor Bloch's stated aims for the Journal on his assumption of the editorship 13 years ago and to attempt to ascertain now, on his retirement, whether those aims were accomplished. After all, who might have predicted the major advances and controversies in our field, the new methods of disseminating information and the explosion in psychiatric literature that occurred during his tenure? Nevertheless, when he became editor of the ANZJP in 1992, Professor Bloch's principal objectives were that the Journal ‘serve as a forum for the dissemination of scientific knowledge, regarding science in its widest sense of scientia – knowledge…’ and that it ‘provide clinicians with a ready means to promote their continuing psychiatric education’ [1]. Even the most cursory perusal of ANZJP issues published during Professor Bloch's period as editor would suggest that these objectives were met, ‘and then some’. Let me remind readers about some of the developments and initiatives that occurred.

Under Professor Bloch's editorship, the content trebled, the frequency of publication increased from quarterly to monthly, structured abstracts were implemented, and an electronic version (Synergy) appeared. The Journal is now covered by over 30 indexing services (there were four in 1992). A range of columns (e.g. ‘Point of View’, ‘Commemoration’, ‘Heart of the Matter’, ‘Books Reconsidered’, ‘Researching Psychiatry’) emerged, guest-edited Special Sections were introduced, and pictures from the Cunningham Dax Collection of Psychiatric Art adorned the back cover of every issue. Over 400 reviewers were recruited to assess manuscripts and a paper-free editorial office (Manuscript Central), which handles manuscripts electronically from submission to publication, was established. The above list is not exhaustive. Doubtless attracted by the quality of the Journal, authors regularly included eminent researchers from Australasia, North America and Europe. Glen Gabbard, Professor of Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the ANZJP in 2002 as ‘a gem of a journal’. ‘The articles’, declared Professor Gabbard, ‘are scholarly, clinically useful and relevant to a much broader audience than our colleagues Down Under’. The following year, Professor Anthony Clare of St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin, suggested that Professor Bloch's ‘efforts to raise the journal's profile, standing and availability are to be applauded’.

Professor Bloch would be the first to acknowledge that the progress of the Journal and the plaudits it has attracted have relied on significant contributions from members of his Editorial and Advisory Boards, authors, reviewers and the publisher, among others. (Felicity and the three Bloch children [Leah, David and Aaron], for instance, ensured a warm family atmosphere pervaded the monthly Editorial Board meetings that were held in the Bloch home, facilitating the Board's deliberations). However, equally, the achievements would not have been possible without having an editor endowed with suitable qualities. In Professor Bloch's case, these qualities included vigour, creativity, a capacity to enthuse others, an ability to listen to, and accommodate, contrasting viewpoints, confidence, tact and a delightful sense of humour.

George Halasz and Edwin Harari, members of the Editorial Board throughout Professor Bloch's term, attested to several of the above-mentioned attributes. Dr Halasz indicated that the vast majority of members of Professor Bloch's first Editorial Board were novices in the publishing arena: ‘That was a strength of Sid – his accessibility and nurturing… he continued to do that as new people joined (the Board)’. A vital skill, suggested Dr Harari, was that Professor Bloch ‘allowed a diversity of views to be expressed on the Board. He was never scornful or dismissive of critics of the Journal and urged Board members to consider every criticism seriously, as he himself did, but without descending into morbid introspection, paralysing self-doubt or servile compliance in the face of criticism from some in our field’. Both Dr Halasz and Dr Harari highlighted the tension and potential for schism in psychiatry today and commented that Professor Bloch's rallying call was that the Journal was primarily for all College members and that no-one had a monopoly on the truth about how psychiatry should be practiced or how it should be represented in the scientific literature.

Being an editor is not always smooth sailing. For example, dealing with aggrieved authors, disgruntled readers and tardy reviewers can be thorny, particularly when they are ‘high flyers’ in our profession; Professor Bloch handled such tasks with confidence, but invariably too with tact and sensitivity. When necessary, Professor Bloch did not shy away from battles that he believed should be fought, even if the outcome was never likely to be in his favour; Professor Bloch's stance against the much-vaunted ‘impact factor’ as a measure of the quality of published work did not always win him friends in the publishing community and academic circles. Nevertheless, in this endeavour he appears to have found an ally in Peter Tyrer, editor of The British Journal of Psychiatry, who surmised, correctly, that Professor Bloch ‘feels it [the impact factor] has stifled innovation, promoted deceit and… made editors into Pavlovian creatures craving desperately for citations to their journal with no real interest in quality’. Professor Tyrer approvingly dubbed Professor Bloch ‘the impact factor's arch enemy’.

Those who know Professor Bloch would appreciate that humour was in no short supply during his editorship. Dr Halasz remembered that there were teething problems at the outset – among other difficulties encountered, the Melbourne-based Editorial Board was largely inexperienced, technical production continued for a while on the other side of the continent (in Perth) and the work could be arduous. Professor Bloch promised his flagging colleagues a bonus trip to Asia for their efforts, and would occasionally proclaim ‘Next year in Phuket’ to keep them motivated. ‘We never got to Phuket’, Dr Halasz lamented, ‘but did score an annual Thai dinner that was most enjoyable’. Dr Harari appreciated being allowed, on occasion, to free-associate at Board meetings. For example, in the course of discussing a paper from China on the effects of antidepressant medication, Professor Bloch permitted Dr Harari to enact a brief, ‘off the cuff’ skit on how one might recommend an MAO inhibitor to a depressed stalwart of the Chinese Communist Party. ‘From that apparently silly diversion’, stated Dr Harari, ‘we were able to debate the strengths and limitations of the article and frame its rejection in a way that was less likely to cause offence to the authors than might originally have been the case’. It is worth adding that ‘good times’ did not occur exclusively during Editorial Board meetings. Alma Ross, Journal Production Manager at Blackwell, recalled that when the publisher relocated in 2002, Professor Bloch quickly judged that the architecture and acoustics of the new premises lent themselves to operatic performance; his impromptu rendition of a Schubert lieder at once enthralled and amused Blackwell staff and visitors to the establishment.

An editor's work is always enhanced by concurrent involvement in a variety of fields besides editing. For one who would have the psychiatrist perched upon a sturdy three-legged stool (the legs representing the science, the art and the ethics of psychiatry) [2] and who counts George Engel and Maimonides [3] among those he admires in medicine, it comes as no surprise that Professor Bloch continued to be active, and acclaimed, in areas beyond his role as Journal Editor. His research and writing in the psychotherapies, pioneering work on ethics, studies in psycho-oncology, innovative teaching methods (recently incorporating the Humanities – who could forget the performances of Death of Ivan Ilych and Winterreise that Professor Bloch arranged for RANZCP Congresses?) provide but a few examples.

Allow me to share a final anecdote. It has been suggested [4] that a senior editor's foremost obligation is to teach and counsel fellow editors in order to maintain high standards in publication. One could quibble about that viewpoint, but it is a fact that my initial, very positive experiences with Professor Bloch influenced my decision to seek an editor's role in the College. I first met Professor Bloch several years ago in Washington, at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Only recently had I obtained my College Fellowship. Professor Bloch had just delivered an invited workshop with Professor Nancy Andreasen on publishing. After the presentation, I approached Professor Bloch and began to discuss with him issues concerning publishing ethics; he recommended we join forces to write an article on the subject. A few weeks later, we found ourselves sitting at an outdoor café at Bondi Beach on a blustery day, surrounded by articles and books, their pages flapping noisily in the wind. Within four hours, our paper – a review of publishing ethics in psychiatry [5] – was essentially written, a friendship had been forged and I had come to appreciate Professor Bloch's sharp intellect, creativity, capacity for hard work, generosity to junior colleagues and wonderful sense of humour. Clearly, from all accounts, these characteristics typify every area to which Professor Bloch has turned his attention.

With Peter Joyce's appointment as editor, the Journal remains in excellent hands. Inevitably, there will be changes, there must be changes, that will allow Professor Joyce to put his own stamp on the publication. All of us look forward to the Journal's ongoing evolution. At the same time, we will miss you Sid. Many thanks.