Present: Danuta Wasserman (chair), Alan Apter, Annette Beautrais, Lanny Berman, Jan Beskow, Thomas Bronisch, Danute Gailiene, Keith Hawton, Erkki Isometsä, Dave Jobes, Margaret Kelleher, Jouko Lönnqvist, John Mann, David Mcdaid, John Michael, Konrad Michel, Brian L. Mishara, Herman van Praag, Barbara Schneider, David Shaffer, Barbara Stanley, Airi Värnik, Mark Williams

Absent: David Rudd (unable to attend because of an important review in his own department), Diego De Leo, Andrej Marusic (both at Portoroz but busy with the congress)

A. Web Site

Initial difficulties with the IASR Web site in San Antonio have been resolved. The Web site will soon be hosted from San Antonio, and members will be informed of the new arrangements. Dr. Mann will contribute the costs borne by Columbia for their interim hosting to the IASR to the academy.

B. Finances

1. Thomas Bronisch summarized the current situation. The IASR has not yet been registered as a nonprofit organization.

2. Wanda Scott has agreed to advise Thomas Bronisch on the procedures necessary to do this. Once done, the society will set up a new account and transfer existing funds into that. Thomas Bronisch indicated that it was important to do this soon because receipts from members need to be deposited and payment needs to be made to the journal’s publisher.

3. As of August 31, 2006, the IASR held assets of $4,131, including a donation of Euro 2,000 from Lundbeck.

C. Archives of Suicide Research

1. Barbara Stanley (editor) reported that she had appointed Anat Brunstein Klomek as an assistant editor.

2. Barbara Stanley reported that papers for the first issue for 2007 had been forwarded to the publisher.

3. Barbara Stanley reported that the journal is now listed in Index Medicus but has an impact score of 0.

4. Barbara Stanley intends to broaden the content from the previously dominant themes of clinical and cross-cultural papers to include more reviews (three reviews have been commissioned), more biological papers, and more “hypothesis papers,” i.e., proposals for mechanisms that remain unsupported by evidence.

5. Barbara Stanley suggested that the term of the editor be shortened from two five-year terms to two three-year terms, but this proposal was not tabled for a vote.

6. Danuta Wasserman requested that the president be sent advance copies of accepted papers for information purposes, and Barbara agreed.

7. Barbara Stanley suggested distributing the journal through the National Library of Medicine (NLM). A charge is made to the reader, and proceeds are shared between the NLM and the publisher or the society. This has the potential to greatly increase the distribution and impact score of an article. No decision was made about whether this suggestion would be pursued.

8. Several participants proposed that the journal acquire a “niche identity.” David Shaffer suggested that highly specific critical reviews on important but well-defined questions might prove attractive to readers. Barbara Stanley asked members to send her suggestions for review topics.

9. Reviewing: Barbara reported that she liked to have at least two reviews and she routinely requested three. She hoped that members accept to do no fewer than three reviews a year. Keith Hawton felt that was too many. Barbara said she now had the data to compute an acceptance rate and would do so soon.

10. Mark Williams proposed a goal of having a two-week or, at most, a one-month turnaround and that Barbara should rely on her colleagues at Columbia to give a quick turnaround. He quoted examples where other journals relying on in-house reviews had risen to prominence.

11. Barbara cautioned the group that survival of the journal would be a concern for as long as the circulation was confined to members. Increasing the membership to one hundred or more would reduce the cost to the academy.

12. Keith Hawton proposed that Barbara change instructions to authors to require a structured abstract, and he suggested a 150-word limit. Barbara agreed.

D. The Morselli Award

Annette Beautrais regretted a misunderstanding about the process for obtaining nominations. She raised the question of the frequency of the award, and it was confirmed that it should be each two years.

E. Rules

1. David Rudd will soon send out a request for nominations for the election of academy officers, etc.

2. Thomas Bronisch confirmed that the bylaws indicated that the secretary’s tenure was for four years.

F. Membership

1. Keith suggested that the process of adding members was very “passive” and that the society needed to be more active in recruitment.

2. Thomas reminded the group that nominations for membership were received and decided upon on a rolling basis. He said he would send out a list of existing members to assist in nominating additional members.

3. Various suggestions were put forward about broadening the membership to scientists who were only newly involved in suicide research. No decision was made on that.

4. Mark Williams proposed a two-tiered membership, promoting senior investigators to fellows and allowing the entry at membership level to scientists who had had briefer involvement in suicide research. This proposal was not put to a vote.

G. Next Meeting

1. John Mann asked whether it would be a good idea to change the format of the annual meeting to shorten the presentation length and extend the discussion length and to record and publish both the presentations and the discussions. No vote was taken on this proposal.

2. It was suggested that the next meeting should be held in conjunction with the next meeting of the IASP, which will be held in Killarney on August 28, 2007. Margaret Kelleher undertook to look at the cost and feasibility of a meeting immediately before that.

3. Danuta Wasserman indicated that another possibility would be to have a meeting in Stockholm in conjunction with the Nobel Conference.

Minutes prepared by David Shaffer

Reviewed by Konrad Michel and Airi Värnik

DS/dk