Truth in science is a quest. The quest for truth in scientific research in the health domain affects the lives of our patients and their families. No one paper should stand alone, and we build upon our confidence in data with accumulating evidence and reproducible findings. The scientific process is incremental, and we hope for results that can be replicated in future studies and in the real world when it comes to treatments.
In the world of short attention spans, social media, and poor information going viral, published peer-reviewed papers are durable resources for clinicians now and in the future. The original research and scholarly reviews we publish in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry may propel our field forward with advances. Publishing in a clinical journal is a privilege and responsibility: high-quality papers can positively affect lives, and papers of lesser quality could misguide care.
Peer reviewers are the safeguards of our field. We value our reviewers’ ability to not only assess manuscripts in the pipeline, but also put the findings into context. Theirs is an enduring, essential role that is crucial in the process of bringing forward new data and treatments. Our esteemed authors are also doing crucial work. It is up to us as a community of scientists and clinicians to make sure that work being done is as accurate and impactful as possible.
On the horizon are changes that may affect the way we receive and process information. Artificial intelligence, pre–peer review publication platforms, and social media all may impact the dissemination of clinically relevant scientific information, and perhaps not for the best. These developments make it crucial to read critically. As readers, we can look at the context in which each paper is released. Does it fit the current landscape? Does it offer new ideas or validate previous findings? Does the paper make sense? Clinicians have an especially important role in assessing whether scientific findings match our real-world assessments.
We see both challenging and exciting areas of expansion for JCP in the new year. I welcome Dr Joseph F. Goldberg as Deputy Editor of the Journal, after many years of service as a section editor and longtime author and peer reviewer. Dr Goldberg is the current president of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, the organization with which JCP maintains a professional affiliation. In the new year, we hope to see the expansion of offerings for early career psychiatrists and new sections in the journal.
We thank our authors for providing us with opportunities to offer new works to communicate our mission of the advancement of clinical care and clinical research. I am also grateful for the continued dedication of our section editors and editorial board.
As editors, we know that our peer reviewers’ time is precious and respect their contribution to the field. We are also grateful for the time our colleagues spend mentoring in the art of peer review, and we are indebted to junior colleagues who are eager to take on this role. As an annual tradition, we show our appreciation to those who have reviewed the most papers during the year in our Circle of Honor.
Finally, I would like to give my great thanks to the team at JCP, who work hard behind the scenes to make sure that the work of others makes a meaningful impact.
I wish you all a healthy and happy 2024.
Marlene P. Freeman, MD Editor in Chief
Chase T. M. Anderson
Chittaranjan Andrade
Richard Balon
Scott A. Freeman
Manish Kumar Jha
Joshua T. Kantrowitz
James H. Kocsis
Aiste Lengvenyte
John C. Markowitz
David Mischoulon
Bénédicte Nobile
George I. Papakostas
Taeho Greg Rhee
Mauricio Tohen
Samuel T. Wilkinson
JCP Peer Reviewers can receive 3 CME AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ for each review that meets the criteria. To learn about peer-reviewing for JCP (and the opportunity to receive CME credit), please visit Psychiatrist.com/information-for-reviewers
Reviewers for The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
December 5, 2022–December 5, 2023