Genomic Psychiatry
We are incredibly excited to introduce Genomic Psychiatry: Advancing Science from Genes to Society (Genomic Psychiatry): a new type of genetics journal that broadly covers our field, interweaving advances in genetics and genomics with progress in all other areas of contemporary psychiatry. How can we not be interested in genomic discoveries that advance psychiatry? New targets identified by genomics will advance therapeutics. However, mental illness cannot be reduced to our genetic code and advances in genomics have not yet affected the course of psychiatric disorders. The effects of development, the environment, and society are self-evident. Our focus starts with genetics and genomics and it extends to the complex road from genes to psychiatry. We welcome a range of work, including genetics and genomics and all the other -omics, fundamental neuroscience, pharmacology, microbiology, neuroimaging, brain stimulation, functional neurosurgery, analyses of “big data,” computational approaches including AI, digital health, e-health, all the way to epidemiology, societal impacts and public health. We appreciate how difficult it is to bring new concepts into a scientific world that has a vested interest in preserving existing dogma. We support innovation and, with your contributions, we aim at “advancing science from genes to society.” Stay tuned for updates as we move psychiatry forward. For early access to our papers, go to our Early View-AOP page,
Overview and Key Features of Genomic Psychiatry
The principal aim of Genomic Psychiatry: Advancing Science from Genes to Society is to interweave groundbreaking advances in psychiatric genomics with major advances in all other areas of contemporary psychiatry. Why is this important? The impact of genes in psychiatry is clearly modified by development, the environment, and society. Conversely, the environment and society interact with our genetic substrate before their effects are manifested. By bringing together, side by side, single contributions and interdisciplinary collaborations from genomics and multiple other fields, Genomic Psychiatry aims to redefine psychiatric science by bringing about a veritable transformation on how we bring together progress in genomics and all other fields to enhance our understanding of psychiatric disorders, from genes to society.
Genomic Psychiatry has a broad scope. As our goal is to interweave genetics with other advances in contemporary psychiatry, we welcome innovative research from in-depth studies of psychiatric genomics to broader investigations of the underpinnings, treatments, outcomes, and consequences of mental health. In addition to the genetic aspects of mental illness, our scope includes advances in neuroscience of potential relevance to mental illness, imaging, psychology, pharmacology, therapeutics, microbiology including the microbiome, immunology, endocrinology, brain stimulation, functional neurosurgery, “big data,” computational approaches including AI, epidemiology, and public health initiatives.
Our mission is to push the frontiers of knowledge across the continuum from the genome to society, interweaving progress in genomics with advances in all other areas of psychiatry. Through our discovery and innovation journey, we aim at creating a new, cross-disciplinary, and team-science based narrative for mental health in the genomic era. We are particularly committed to work that is conceptually novel and that has the potential for translational impact.
Genomics Psychiatry values integrity, scientific rigor, ethical standards, and inclusivity. We welcome papers from all countries and all continents and will treat and process each manuscript based exclusively on its content, not on where it comes from.
Our major goal is to attain the highest levels of scientific achievement, which can only be based on full transparency and honesty. Therefore, as an integral part of our mission to uphold the bedrock of scientific integrity, Genomic Press has instituted procedures to meticulously scrutinize any allegations that come into our purview, irrespective of their channel of emergence. Whether raised prior to publication or post-release, or when proffered by whistleblowers, these charges are met with rigorous examination. Our pledge to sustain scholarly excellence propels us to diligently investigate any suspicions of scientific malfeasance, which may run the gamut from academic fraud, recurrent manuscript submissions, spurious data creation or manipulation, to ethically dubious research participant interactions, contested authorship, falsified reviewer endorsements, and cloaked vested interests.
In this spirit all our papers will be subjected to plagiarism check for text and, as the technology evolves, also for figures.
While our operational ethos is chiefly harmonized with the principles articulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we retain the latitude to embark on divergent strategies when exigent circumstances call for such. This latitude may entail establishing a dialogue with the questioned authors’ academic institutions, funding agencies, or other germane oversight authorities for rigorous scrutiny.
As for amending the published record, we employ a contextually-based approach, executing modifications through either errata or retractions, based upon broad considerations: errata typically correct inadvertent errors in discrete aspects of published work that do not change the overall findings and conclusions. In contrast, the criteria for retraction may include any of the following: (a) evidence of calculated manipulation, (b) the level of correction would change the nature of the overall findings and conclusions, (c) extensive plagiarism, or (d) there is an overall lack of confidence in the work. We also support COPE’s observations that Editors consider retracting a publication if:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
- It constitutes plagiarism.
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication).
- It contains material or data without authorization for use.
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy).
- It reports unethical research.
- It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
- The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
When deliberating on rescinding an article’s acceptance, initiating the retraction of an already disseminated piece, or emitting an editorial cautionary note, it is our standard protocol to engage in communications with the concerned authors’ institutions as part of our procedures. As supporters of COPE’s policies, we adhere to COPE guidelines in managing investigations of possible misconduct, which are accessible here). This document includes the following language “The COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (Clause 11.4) notes that, in cases of suspected or alleged research or publication misconduct ‘editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution … to investigate.’ COPE therefore advises that investigations into possible misconduct should generally be undertaken by the researcher’s institution and not by editors. If a journal has published unreliable or fraudulent information, the editor has a duty to correct or retract this. However, responsibility for disciplining researchers and ensuring they do not commit further misconduct lies with their institution / employer. Therefore, even when faced with apparently strong evidence of misconduct (e.g. plagiarism or inappropriate image manipulation), and a clear need to correct the published record, editors should liaise with institutions and ensure they are informed.”
Peer review stands as the foundational pillar of the scientific evaluation process, extensively employed in the assessment of research funding (grants) and research outcomes (papers). Our unwavering commitment resides in upholding the integrity of the editorial process, which rests upon an impartial peer review system.
The peer review process can be configured in different ways, with the vast majority of journals worldwide adhering to one of three formats: (i) Single-blind peer reviews are anonymous only to the authors. Authors do not know the reviewers’ names or backgrounds, but reviewers know theirs. (ii) Both authors and reviewers in double-blind peer reviews are anonymous; only the editor knows their identities. A truly double-blind peer review process is hard to attain, as a knowledgeable review can infer authorship based on specific methods and areas of research and cited work. (iii) In open peer review the identity of the author and the reviewer is known by all participants, during or after the review process.
Genomic Psychiatry will adhere to the traditional single-blind peer review format, which is the most widely used. Authors shall remain unaware of the reviewers’ identities, both before and after publication.
Every submission to Genomic Psychiatry, encompassing original research, reviews, correspondence, and all manuscript genres, will invariably undergo external evaluation via single-blind peer review, facilitated by our editorial office. To ensure the global diversity of Genomic Psychiatry, each submission will typically be sent to eight experts, strategically selected to avoid concentration in any single country. Our editorial decisions aim to be grounded in at least three reviews, although if only two reviews are available, they will be considered in the decision-making process. The only exception to the peer review process will consist of purely informational material, such as news and editorials, which will be explicitly identified as such.
The unique strengths and advantages of publishing your research in Genomic Psychiatry include rapid and personalized review, global dissemination of your work, press releases leading to worldwide access, fair cost, and a dedicated but broad focus on cutting-edge research in multiple areas, highlighting advances in genomics in the context of progress in multiple other areas.
We are already registered with Crossref, providing all our publications with searchable DOI links. Applications are being made for Genomic Psychiatry’s ISSN and E-ISSN. As a new and academically based and focused publication, we strive to build a robust portfolio of published articles to meet the criteria for inclusion in other databases. We are already Upon reaching the minimum thresholds, our mission is to actively pursue indexing by prominent databases such as Emerging Sources Citation Index, Web of Science, Current Contents, Current Contents/Life Sciences, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, MEDLINE/Index Medicus, Neuroscience Citation Index, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index. Importantly, inclusion in these databases is retrospective. Consequently, even if your paper is submitted before our indexing, once achieved, your work will be indexed and electronically accessible through these databases.
Genomic Press is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and as such we support the adoption of multiple practices in research assessment. DORA’s first general recommendation is not to use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.
The notion of a “journal impact factor,” alternately abbreviated as IF or JIF, conceived by Eugene Garfield, was created at the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The IF was originally created as a tool to help librarians identify journals to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in an article. Broadly, the IF is indicative of a journal’s influence, as it has regularly assessed annually since 1975 for those journals enumerated in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). This establishment, first identified as Thomson ISI, fell under the ownership of Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992. A series of transactions in 2018 saw Thomson Reuters divest itself of ISI, transferring ownership to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. In the current epoch, Clarivate, an emergent corporation formed by these organizations, presides over the publication of the JCR.
The term “impact factor” is constituted by the quotient derived from dividing the total citations received in one year by articles published within the preceding two years, divided by the number of articles published within that same two-year timeframe. As an illustration, the highly regarded journal Cell (published by Cell Press, a subsidiary of Elsevier) boasted an impact factor of 66.850 for 2022. This number indicates that each scholarly piece published in 2020 and 2021 by Cell was cited, on an average scale, close to 67 times in the year 2022. It must be emphasized, however, that the computations for the impact factors for the year 2022 were only disclosed in June of the year 2023, for the calculus can only be performed post the thorough perusal and processing of all scholarly output for the year 2022 by the indexing company.
The journal impact factor (IF or JIF) is a metric index calculated by Clarivate that measures the number of citations articles published in a specific journal receive over two years, based on the Clarivate Web of Science index.
This metric often represents a journal’s relative importance within its field. Journals with higher impact factor values are considered more prestigious and influential than those with lower values.
Although universities and funding agencies frequently employ the impact factor to assess promotions and research proposals, it has faced criticism for potentially distorting good scientific practices. For more information, see the article by EC McKiernan and colleagues (2019) [1].
Genomic Psychiatry’s Impact Factor will be calculated and provided after the journal’s first three years of publication.
[1] Source: Erin C McKiernan et al. Meta-Research: Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. Elife 2019 Jul 31;8:e47338. doi: 10.7554/eLife.47338.
Information is now widely disseminated through social media. Genomic Psychiatry will therefore maximize the impact and reach of your research using different social media platforms.
Facebook enables us to share your work broadly, sparking intellectual dialogue among diverse audiences. Twitter’s immediacy allows us to deliver key findings from your research to a global community of scientists, scholars, and enthusiasts.
LinkedIn targets professional circles, exposing your work to industry influencers, potential collaborators, and institutions interested in your research. Instagram’s visual focus simplifies complex concepts, making your work accessible to a wide audience. YouTube, through video summaries and author interviews, elucidates your research in an engaging format.
Our robust social media strategy ensures your research doesn’t just get published – it gets publicized, maximizing its visibility and impact within the scientific community and beyond.
At Genomic Press, we understand that publishing your research is the first step in its journey. The true impact of scientific discovery is realized when it reaches the broadest possible audience, resonating within the scientific community and beyond. To this end, we are committed to utilizing press releases to highlight your work, ensuring that all submitted research gains the recognition and exposure it deserves.
Articles that we publish at Genomic Press carry the potential to advance science and improve health, and we are therefore highly committed to showcasing these vital breakthroughs. We forge close relationships with authors and their institutions, collaborating to craft comprehensive press releases for all significant articles we publish. Each press release condenses the essence of your research into a concise, captivating, and accessible narrative, acting as a beacon that attracts diverse audiences. We acknowledge that some institutions prefer to produce their press releases, and we are more than happy to coordinate timing with them. However, regardless of any press releases your institution might create, we will produce our own unless you instruct us not to do so.
To ensure that your work gets extensive exposure worldwide, our Press Releases will be disseminated by EurekAlert!, a nonprofit news-release distribution platform operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publishers of Science) as a resource for journalists and the public. Established in 1996, EurekAlert! hosts news releases produced by universities, journal publishers, medical centers, government agencies, corporations, and other organizations engaged in all disciplines of scientific research, and those releases are widely used by journalists from all countries.
This initiative underpins our commitment to supporting your research journey and actively promoting your accomplishments. We are invested in providing your groundbreaking work with the platform it needs to stimulate discourse, inspire innovation, and contribute to improving our global community.
Subscribe to our newsfeeds to keep up with the latest updates when we launch in 2024.
Our Editorial Board has eminent international experts. Confirmed members of the Editorial Board include:
Huda Akil, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
Ole A. Andreassen, University of Oslo, 0318 Oslo, Norway
Bernhard Baune, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany
Stefan R. Bornstein, TUD Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Kristen Brennand, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
Avshalom Caspi, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
Moses Chao, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York 10016, USA
Ian Deary, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UK
Yogesh Dwivedi, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birminagm, Alabama 35294, USA
Janice Fullerton, Neuroscience Research Australia and University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
Fred H. Gage, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California 92037, USA
Samuel E. Gandy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029-5674, USA
Patricia Gaspar, INSERM Paris Brain Institute, Hôpital Salpêtrière, 75013 Paris, France
Anthony A. Grace, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
Todd D. Gould, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA
Raquel E. Gur, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Jan-Åke Gustafsson, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
Sir John Hardy, University College London Dementia Research Institute, London, WC1E 6B, UK
Noboru Hiroi, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78229, USA
Yasmin Hurd, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029, USA
Siegfried Kasper, Center for Brain Research, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Kenneth S. Kendler, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA
Lorenzo Leggio, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA
Xin-Yun Lu, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia 30912, USA
Robert Malenka, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Andrew McIntosh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH10 5HF, Scotland, UK,
Maria Oquendo, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Sir Michael Owen, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 4HQ, Wales, UK
Aarno Palotie, Institute for Molecular Medicine, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Carlos N. Pato, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA
Michele Pato, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA
Mary L. Phillips, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London, SE5 8AF, UK
Maurizio Popoli, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy
John Rubenstein, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158, USA
Carlo Sala, L’ Istituto di Neuroscienze del CNR, Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca, 20854 Vedano al Lambro, MB, Italy
Alan F. Schatzberg, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Jair Soares, University of Texas Health Science Center, McGovern School of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77054, USA
Thomas C. Südhof, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Giuseppe Testa, Università degli Studi di Milano, Human Technopole, 20157, Milan, MI, Italy
Gustavo Turecki, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H4H 1R3, Canada
Monica Uddin, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612, USA
Myrna Weissman, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York 10032, USA
Xiangmin Xu, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
Takeo Yoshikawa, RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Saitama, 351-0198, Japan
Mone Zaidi, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029, USA
Our Editorial Board has eminent international experts. Confirmed members of the Editorial Board include:
Huda Akil, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
Ole A. Andreassen, University of Oslo, Oslo, 0318, Norway
Bernhard Baune, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany
Stefan R. Bornstein, TUD Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Kristen Brennand, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
Avshalom Caspi, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
Moses Chao, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York 10016, USA
Sven Cichon, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
Ian Deary, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UK
Yogesh Dwivedi, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birminagm, Alabama 35294, USA
Stephen Faraone, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York 13210, USA
Janice Fullerton, Neuroscience Research Australia and University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
Fred H. Gage, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California 92037, USA
Samuel E. Gandy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029-5674, USA
Patricia Gaspar, INSERM Paris Brain Institute, Hopital Salpetrière, Paris 75013, France
Anthony A. Grace, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
Todd D. Gould, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA
Raquel E. Gur, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Jan-Åke Gustafsson, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
Sir John Hardy, University College London Dementia Research institute, London, WC1E 6B, UK
Noboru Hiroi, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78229, USA
Yasmin Hurd, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029, USA
Siegfried Kasper, Center for Brain Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Kenneth S. Kendler, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA
Lorenzo Leggio, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA
Xin-Yun Lu, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia 30912, USA
Robert Malenka, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Nick Martin, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia
Andrew McIntosh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH10 5HF, Scotland, UK,
Maria Oquendo, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Sir Michael Owen, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, Wales, UK
Aarno Palotie, University of Helsinki, Institute for Molecular Medicine Helsinki, Finland
Carlos N. Pato, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA
Michele Pato, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA
Mary L. Phillips, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London SE5 8AF, UK
Maurizio Popoli, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy
James Potash, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA
John Rubenstein, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158, USA
Carlo Sala, L’ Istituto di Neuroscienze del CNR, Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca, 20854 Vedano al Lambro (MB), Italy
Alan F. Schatzberg, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Jair Soares, University of Texas Health Science Center, McGovern School of Medicine, Houstin Texas 77054, USA
Thomas C. Südhof, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Kristiina Tammimies, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
Giuseppe Testa, Università degli Studi di Milano, Human Technopole, 20157 Milan, Italy
Gustavo Turecki, McGill University, Montréal, QC H4H 1R3, Canada
Monica Uddin, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
Myrna Weissman, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York 10032, USA
Xiangmin Xu, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
Takeo Yoshikawa, RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
Mone Zaidi, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029, USA
At Genomic Press, we acknowledge the complexities researchers face during manuscript submission and publication processes. We aim to simplify your publishing journey, allowing you to focus on producing and sharing innovative research.
We have standardized our author guidelines across all journals, including Genomic Psychiatry and Psychedelics: The Journal of Psychedelic Pharmacology, ensuring consistency and clarity. All our publications will accept the same manuscript types and adhere to the same instructions for authors. Our goal is to streamline your experience, making it straightforward and efficient.
Our unified author instructions are just a click away. Please follow this link to access detailed manuscript preparation and submission guidelines.
We designed Genomic Psychiatry to optimize your publishing experience, making it straightforward and efficient. Stay tuned for more details about our journal. We will work with you to facilitate the process of publishing and disseminating your articles after they undergo double-blind peer-review in order to enhance the impact of your discoveries. Welcome aboard!
Stay connected for updates as we approach our launch
