Abstract
In this issue, McGrath et al. (pp. 533–541) continue the series of papers (e.g. [1]) describing leading Australasian research groups. Key messages from the development of the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research include the importance of research groups having the courage to change and to concentrate on areas of research strength. It is also important to note that while some of the disease burden due to mental disorders could be reduced by better mental health policy and services, an even greater proportion of disease burden cannot be averted with our current knowledge and treatments. Any rational strategy to improve themental health status of our communities would therefore include a larger investment for research into the aetiology and treatment of mental disorders.
Blair et al. (pp. 542–549) continue the series of papers on research methods [2],[3], and summarize techniques for the identification of genes involved in psychiatric disorders. The evidence that genes are ofmajor importance for the aetiology of most majormental disorders is now overwhelming. This should not lead to a ‘simplistic biological reductionism’, but to an integration of multiple explanatory perspectives [4]. Indeed, some of the most exciting psychiatric research in the world at present is coming from the Dunedin longitudinal study, and is showing the importance of gene–environment interactions [5],[6]. There is no longer a debate about nature versus nurture, the challenge is understanding their interplay. The editors hope that this journal can publish important papers that address this vital challenge of nature via nurture.
Van den Buuse et al. (pp. 550–557) from the Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria review the importance of animal models for research on psychiatric disorders and especially schizophrenia. Although the authors acknowledge that human mental disorders can never be exactly reproduced in animals, animal models may make major contributions to improved understanding of the neural circuits, neurotransmitters and genetics that underlie behavioural function.
Bell et al. (pp. 558–564, 565–574) review the background rationale and methods of the acute tryptophan depletion challenge test, and summarize the clinical implications of research using this approach. Interestingly, this research has nowmoved beyond just looking at the effects of tryptophan depletion in specific diagnostic groups (e.g. people recovered from a depressive episode), to understanding how changes in serotonergic function may affect specific domains of psychopathology such as sleep, aggressive and cognitive behaviours.
Elliott and Hawthorne (pp. 575–582, 583–590) question how we should deal with the very real issue of missing data whenever we have repeat measures. This issue arises in every clinical trial in psychiatry, as well as in longitudinal and follow-up studies. These papers suggest that the common methods such as listwise deletion, or the last observation carried forward (which is commonly used in pharmacological trials) perform poorly, and recommend that researchers use a technique such as closest match missing data imputation.
Finally, Hickie et al. (pp. 591–599) use citation rates to evaluate the current state of mental health research in Australia and New Zealand, and suggest that such measurement should be repeated at regular intervals. Although the US, followed by the UK, have the most citations, New Zealand and Australia perform remarkably well on citations per paper and citations per capita. New Zealand's performance would be even better if there were a measure of citations per research dollar spent. Although all measures of research output have limitations and should not be used in isolation, citation rates do provide useful comparative data for assessing the quality of research being conducted by countries, institutions and individual researchers. It is not just chance that 10 of the top 20 named individuals (Table 4) from the two countries are members of the Editorial Board or International Advisory Board of this journal. When we are seeking new members for the International Advisory Board we will use citations as an important element in selection. The exceptions could be for the outstanding new researcher, or where we were seeking expertise in particular areas.
For journals, the comparable measure is the impact factor, and as highlighted in my first editorial in the April issue, the journal's publication policy is now strongly influenced by the objective of enhancing our impact factor. Indeed, we would like to request that reviewers of papers for the journal consider whether a paper will be cited in their overall evaluation of a paper's quality.