“…25 of them were explicitly the writers' opinions, these papers were varied and perspective pieces from every area of knowledge, including editorials planning the future of psychiatric research, comments based on real-life experience in training young researchers and cultural competencies and debates on last MHR evolutions. There were arguments for common strategies, users involvement, more funding (especially from private not-for-profit sources), equitably shared between neurosciences and traditional psychiatric approaches, or demands for more capacitybuilding, multidisciplinary approaches, collaborations with the pharma industry, and for a public health paradigm in mental health research as well as bridging the psychotherapeutic and pharmacological research (Nutt, 2005, Erickson and Erickson, 2007, Atkins and Frazier, 2011, Drake, 2013, Owen, 2014, Schachar and Ickowicz, 2014, Okkels et al, 2015, Fitzgerald, 2015, Caldieraro, 2016, Sweetland et al, 2016, Wessely and Nicholson, 2016, Lewis-Fernández et al, 2016, Bhui, 2016, Moss et al, 2016, Bhugra et al, 2017. Papers also made the cases for specific issues such as European psychotraumatology (Şar, 2015), women's and veteran women mental health (Blehar, 2006, Bastian et al, 2013, the development of qualitative research in psychiatry (Crabb and Chur-Hansen, 2009), the inclusion of minorities in research (Forsyth and Stoff, 2009, Jeste et al, 2009, Anand, 2012.…”