Publishing provides a critical role for communicating research findings, launching new ideas and generating discussion on topics that have clinical and research importance. The latter, raising awareness through debate, is a crucial part of science as it assists in determining the direction of research and allows for reappraisal and evaluation of ongoing and previous achievements.
Whereas typically reviews provide a synthesis of findings, editorials provide greater scope for opinion and commentary. This is an essential component of scientific discourse as it encourages the examination of research findings with respect to their pertinence in the field and potential clinical application. Thus in this issue I draw your attention to an editorial by Walter et al. Reference Walter, Byrne, Griffiths, Hunt, Soh, Cleary, Duffy, Crawford, Krabman, Concannon and Malhi(1) that tackles the important topic of whether young people can reliably rate side effects of antipsychotic medication. Further, I am grateful to this same author and his junior colleague for their wonderful submission to our regular Pix and Prose section Reference Robertson and Walter(2). The broad theme of these articles namely, integrating basic and clinical science, is pursued further in Intervention Insights Reference Dignam, Parry and Berk(3), in which attachment and its neurobiology is explored deftly.
I am pleased to report that The Journal continues to receive interesting Comment & Critique, however there is scope for increasing our capacity for critical comment in the form of relevant and up to date editorials. I therefore strongly encourage readers to submit articles in this formatFootnote 1.