Our Mission

Over the past several decades the field of mental health has witnessed a widening gap between researchers and practitioners. This growing divide has led many observers to contend that the scientific foundations of clinical psychology and allied disciplines are steadily eroding. A wide variety of unsubstantiated or untested treatments (such as facilitated communication and hypnotic age regression) and assessment methods (such as human figure drawing tests and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) have flourished in popularity in recent years. Still other techniques (such as anatomically correct dolls and the Rorschach Inkblot Test) are widely used even though they are highly controversial or questionable on scientific grounds. Although some of these techniques may ultimately prove to be effective, it is disturbing that the frequency of their use greatly outstrips their evidentiary base.

The field of mental health is in crisis. The public’s perception of mental health practice is shaped far more by self-help books, radio psychologists, and sensational media stories of dramatic “cures” than by objective scientific evaluations. Self-proclaimed gurus are often heralded in the mass media even though their treatments have not been submitted to randomized, double-blind trials, which should be standard procedure in the scientific evaluation of claims. Psychiatric labels that lack adequate research support (such as codependency and sexual addiction) are used with increasing frequency in the popular press and courts of law. Many treatment and assessment techniques promulgated to the general public rest on tenuous scientific foundations. Some of these techniques, such as rebirthing and highly suggestive therapeutic methods (e.g., hypnosis) to recover memories, are almost surely harmful in certain cases. Still other techniques, although not harmful per se, may deprive individuals of valuable time and financial resources that could be more effectively spent on other treatments.

Despite the continued proliferation of unvalidated therapeutic, assessment, and diagnostic techniques, there exists no journal devoted to the objective evaluation of unconventional or untested claims in clinical psychology and psychiatry. As a consequence, we believe that a new peer-reviewed journal is sorely needed.

With this need evident, we wish to announce the establishment of a new interdisciplinary journal, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, to be published by Dr. Paul Kurtz of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York (founder of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer) and edited by Dr. Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University. This journal’s primary mission will be to examine all unsubstantiated and controversial mental health claims in an open-minded fashion, but to insist on high standards of evidence before accepting them.

We believe that the founding of the The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice will help to bridge the gap between the experimental scientist and the practitioner by encouraging researchers and clinicians in psychology, psychiatry, social work, counseling, psychiatric nursing, and allied disciplines to adopt rigorous scientific standards when evaluating mental health claims. By publishing both research articles and incisive literature reviews, we intend to enhance the quality of scientific discourse regarding unorthodox psychological and psychiatric methods. In addition, we hope to draw the attention of researchers, clinicians, and professionals in disciplines relevant to mental health (such as medicine, law, education, and the history and philosophy of science) to a largely neglected set of issues of paramount importance to science and society.

The signers of this mission statement are charter members of the newly formed Council for Scientific Mental Health Practice. The principal goals of this council are: first, to insist on rigorous standards in evaluating mental health therapies and assessment/diagnostic methods; second, to call for randomized, controlled tests in the evaluation of all novel treatments; and third, to make knowledge concerning untested and unconventional mental health claims readily available to both the practitioner and the general public. We believe that by providing a forum for such evaluations we will perform a valuable service for both scientific research and the public’s understanding of science. We invite you to support our efforts.