In an unprecedented move that has sent ripples across the academic publishing community, a significant portion of the editorial board of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics has resigned, citing concerns over editorial independence and a lack of transparency from the publisher. The resignations follow the abrupt replacement of the journal’s editors, which has sparked discussions on the growing tension between publishers and editorial boards in scientific publishing.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, published by Karger, is recognized as the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy. The journal boasts impressive metrics, including an impact factor of 16.3 and a CiteScore of 29.4, ranking it fourth among top psychiatry and psychology journals. Despite its reputation, the editorial upheaval has raised questions about the journal’s future direction.
Unexplained Dismissal Triggers Resignations
The controversy began when Karger’s publication manager notified Editors-in-Chief Jenny Guidi and Fiammetta Cosci that their contracts would not be renewed, just one day after they published an editorial highlighting the journal’s achievements. Guidi revealed that her contract termination was communicated without any prior discussion or justification, describing the situation as “deplorable” and “unexpected.”
Cosci, an Associate Professor at the University of Florence, subsequently resigned and is now serving as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, published by Elsevier. Guidi and Cosci’s dismissal triggered mass resignations, including the departure of Giovanni Fava, the journal’s honorary editor who had led the publication for 30 years before passing on leadership to Guidi and Cosci.
Fava criticized Karger’s decision, stating that the replacement of editorial leadership occurred without consulting the editorial board or him personally. As a result, 70% of the board members and statistical consultants tendered their resignations. According to Fava, this incident reflects the broader issue of publishers undermining the independence of editorial boards to prioritize commercial interests.
Editorial Independence vs. Publisher Strategy
The rift between the editors and the publisher reportedly stemmed from differing visions for the journal’s growth and development. Fava and Guidi cited concerns over Karger’s production delays and inconsistent quality, which they said negatively impacted the journal’s publication timeline. Guidi also resisted proposals from Karger’s publication manager to implement strategies such as special issues and automated reviewer selection, arguing that these measures would compromise the journal’s unique identity and scientific integrity.
Karger, however, maintained that the changes were part of a “normal editorial transition” aimed at revitalizing the journal. Christina Chap, Karger’s Head of Editorial Development, stated that declining submissions over the past five years necessitated a leadership change. According to Chap, the publisher informed the editors, the editorial board, and affiliated societies of its decision within the standard notice period.
Dissatisfaction Among Board Members
Board members, however, have voiced dissatisfaction over the manner in which the transition was handled. Richard Balon, a board member from Wayne State University, criticized the lack of communication and transparency. He only learned of the changes informally and received vague explanations from Karger about the journal’s “new direction.”
Balon, who has served on multiple editorial boards, expressed frustration over what he perceived as the publisher prioritizing profit over maintaining the journal’s academic standards. He ultimately resigned, stating that “after years of free service,” the editorial board deserved better treatment.
Massimo Biondi, a professor emeritus at the Sapienza University of Rome, echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that the lack of meaningful response from Karger led to his resignation. He expressed disappointment over how the board members and their institutions were treated.
A Broader Industry Concern
The mass resignation at Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is not an isolated incident. Retraction Watch has documented similar occurrences at more than 20 scientific journals since 2023. The resignations reflect a growing tension in the scholarly publishing ecosystem, where editors face increasing pressure to meet publishers’ business goals while upholding academic standards.
Guidi, who remains “impressed” by the solidarity of the resigning members, called the mass departure a testament to the intellectual values that the academic community must preserve. “This is a sign of the intellectual values that we share and should be preserved despite adversities,” she said.
As Karger prepares to appoint new editorial leadership, the global academic community will be watching closely to see how the journal navigates this transition and whether its reputation for high scientific standards will endure.