Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2023, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics has maintained a top impact factor (16.3) that places the Journal as fourth in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Psychiatry ranking and fourth in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) Psychology ranking. Notably, in the SSCI Psychology ranking, the three journals preceding Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics are entirely concerned with review articles (thus more likely to be cited). This means that Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics currently is the top journal among those publishing original investigations in psychology.In the last decades, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics has been characterized by a strong clinical orientation [1, 2] and continues to seek innovative and original investigations that may open new perspectives at the interface between medicine and behavioral sciences, as well as both critical and systematic review articles of high intellectual content. The Journal supports the pluralism of viewpoints and deals with a broad range of clinical issues, particularly at an interdisciplinary level, related to assessment [3] and treatment in psychiatry and psychology, with special regard to psychotherapy [4, 5], psychosomatic medicine [6‒8], clinical pharmacopsychology [9, 10], and clinimetrics [11‒13]. Above all, a major determinant of selection is “the clinical factor” [14] of submitted papers, i.e., the degree and the extent to which an article provides information to the clinician that may improve his/her practice. We pursue the intellectual richness that only clinical practice can yield. The Journal’s unique identity is also the result of the blending of methodological rigor [15, 16] and innovation.As Editors-in-Chief, we would like to acknowledge here the collaboration between Karger’s editorial office and the Assistant Editors (Marcella Lucente and Chiara Patierno), the invaluable support of the Editorial Board members and statistical consultants, the help of many external reviewers (listed below) who dedicated their time and efforts to assess and improve the quality of submitted manuscripts and the unique advice of the Honorary Editor, Prof. Giovanni A. Fava.The following experts have supplemented the Editorial Board by reviewing the manuscripts submitted to Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics during 2024 and are gratefully acknowledged: F. Aardema (Montreal, QC, Canada), P. Arvilommi (Helsinki, Finland), A. T. F. Beekman (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), G. Benasi (New York, NY, USA), M. O. Bertelli (Florence, Italy), M. Bohus (Mannheim, Germany), R. Bryant (Sydney, NSW, Australia), K. S. Christensen (Aarhus, Denmark), B. F. Dear (Sydney, NSW, Australia), D. Ehrmann (Bad Mergentheim, Germany), A. Evers (Leiden, The Netherlands), T. Favorite (Ann Arbor, MI, USA), J. de Figueiredo (New Haven, CT, USA), F. Galli (Rome, Italy), S. Gostoli (Bologna, Italy), P. Haffner (Berlin, Germany), T. H. Hoppen (Münster, Germany), R. Hurlemann (Bad Zwischenahn, Germany), M. P. Hyett (Bentley, WA, Australia), T. Karatzias (Edinburgh, UK), T. Krieger (Bern, Switzerland), T. M. C. Lee (Hong Kong, Hong Kong), F. Leichsenring (Giessen, Germany), P. Leombruni (Turin, Italy), B. Löwe (Hamburg, Germany), C. Martin-Soelch (Fribourg, Switzerland), P. M. McEvoy (Bentley, WA, Australia), A. E. Nardi (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), K. Rickels (Gladwyne, PA, USA), W. Rief (Marburg, Germany), G. Rodin (Toronto, ON, Canada), N. Sasaki (Tokyo, Japan), M. Schiele (Freiburg, Germany), B. Sheaves (Oxford, UK), E. Silberman (Boston, MA, USA), J. Vittengl (Kirksville, MO, USA), M. Woud (Göttingen, Germany), D. Yao (Chengdu, China), T. Yuan (Shanghai, China), and B. Zhu (Beijing, China).Both external reviewers and Editorial Board members have disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The Editors-in-Chief, the Honorary Editor, and the Assistant Editors have no conflict of interests to declare for 2024.The authors have no funding to declare.Jenny Guidi and Fiammetta Cosci equally contributed to drafting and revising the manuscript.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".