This issue sees the introduction of another journal section. I have been aware for some time of both the importance and strength of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and other published aspects of what has come to be termed “evidence based medicine” (EBM) and “evidence based mental health” (EBMH). At the same time, there is a co-existing uneasiness that something was missing, and that EBM promised more than it was able to deliver. There is a sense of scientific sterility that goes with this approach. It does not seem to be a complete formula for making sense of the existing literature, and it falls far short of what is needed for the scientific development of our ability to understand and treat psychological distress. This unease is increased by the way in which it appears that EBMH approaches provide definitive answers, an algorithm against which current science and clinical practice is to be weighed.