Carpe diem.

Nine years ago, in my first editorial for EvidenceBased Mental Health (EBMH) as editor in chief, I wrote that ‘EBMH should be seen as a tool to engage new generations of psychiatrists and psychologists to develop and implement the evidencebased approach into daily clinical practice.’ I took the job when I moved to Oxford and one of the main reasons why I accepted the challenge of editing this journal was the name of the journal itself. Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. Even if ‘evidence’ is not necessarily ‘evident’, be it strong (ideal scenario) or weak (too often the case), evidence is about data (scientific data, possibly!). Evidence can change over the years, but it is the closest we can get to the truth itself when we deal with healthrelated issues. As a practising psychiatrist, I think that evidence is the only objective starting point that should be used in clinical practice. An evidencebased decision is not ‘a priori’ determined only by the data and it may vary from one patient to another depending on individual clinical circumstances and personal preferences. However, we need data to justify our rational choice in clinical decision making; otherwise, patients will be treated according to mere—and too often, biased—opinions (the recent controversies about COVID19 treatments and vaccines are a clear example of ideology and disinformation). Given the inevitability of errors and inaccuracies in the scientific literature, we have a simple choice: we can either make the best use of the available evidence or dismiss and ignore it. Our journal has always favoured the former approach and rejected nihilism. Valid conclusions can be drawn from a critical and cautious use of the best available, even if flawed, evidence. In 2023, we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the foundation of EBMH. It is a remarkable achievement. And it is great to see that many of the previous editors and associate editors of the journal are still active as academics and clinicians, practising and disseminating evidencebased mental health across the globe. They should be congratulated for their pioneering vision of ‘harnessing advances in clinical epidemiology, biostatistics and information science to produce a coherent and comprehensive approach’ that allowed ‘clinicians to stay up to date with the most recent publications, and base their practice on the best available evidence.’ However, over the last quarter of a century, EBMH has changed dramatically. The journal started as an international digest of the most relevant studies in mental health and published only commissioned commentaries and opinion pieces. EBMH now has its core in unsolicited original research papers and methodological articles, and has become one of the top 10 mental health journals in the world in terms of impact factor (https:// ebmh.bmj.com/pages/about/). To this success contributed all of our editors, editorial boards, publishers, authors and readers. The point now is where to go next. I think there has to be a change. Or better, an evolution. We need to work harder in the field of evidencebased mental health, both in terms of knowledge and implementation. We need to make all the content of the journal free and open access to readers and researchers. We need to accelerate the pace and put more effort to engage a wider range of stakeholders, especially patients. Evidence synthesis, data science, digital technology and precision mental health are the way forward. The world of scientific journals is crowded, the competition high and, even though mental health is now a priority worldwide, the funding is always limited. Rather than being a limitation, all this is a great opportunity. Opportunity to do better science in psychiatry and psychology, to fill the gap between physical and mental health, to combat stigma and discrimination, to deliver better care and have better outcomes for our patients. To be continued.