The abstract doesn't deny anything. It says that mental illness is 'shaped' by the environment. A perfectly reasonable thing to say.

 "Even twins become more and more different at the end."

This is common sense, yet apparently not true.  See this extract from Wikipedia:

"In 1979, Thomas Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment"

The abstract doesn't deny anything. It says that mental illness is 'shaped' by the environment. A perfectly reasonable thing to say.

"The abstract doesn't deny anything"

Taken together with the title, I think the clear implication is that genes do not matter.  If authors had entitled a behavior genetic study of twins "Genetic determinants of mental health",  would they not be accused, correctly in that case, of genetic determinism and of ignoring the environment?

Wikipedia is certainly not the most reliable source of information.

"Genetic determinants of mental health" is also a reasonable title for an article, if as it suggests it deals with genetic features of mental health. Neither that title, nor the one in your original pseudo-question, are explicitly excluding other determinants. That´s why they are OK and the journal didn't have, and needn't have had, a problem.

The only problem is not saying that genetic information is also responsible. But, since you are focusing in an abstract of a " social determinants" paper of a psychiatry journal, I think it's quite OK.

""Genetic determinants of mental health" is also a reasonable title for an article, if as it suggests it deals with genetic features of mental health. Neither that title, nor the one in your original pseudo-question, are explicitly excluding other determinants"

The problem is with the word determinant.  See Churchill's Medical Dictionary (1989):

determinant: "Something that determines the nature or outcome of an occurrence; a determining factor"

determinism:  "The philosophic doctrine that all natural phenomena, including human behavior, are the necessary consequences of antecedent clauses".

CMD does not define determine, so here is its definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary (2001):

"v. 1 cause to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in"

Environmental factors are neither necessary nor decisive factors in mental illness.  So the paper in question should have been entitled "Social Influences on mental health", for example.  Many social scientists deny any biological influences on mental illness, so to state that social factors are determinants (implying sole agents) is seriously misleading. This denies legitimacy to a whole branch of science, genetics. The word determinant should be banned from the biological and social science literature.

Cherry-picking definitions is the real truth-crime here. 

"Cherry-picking definitions is the real truth-crime here."

So can we have dictionary definitions of determin- that indicate I have got the wrong end of the stick. Scientists who show that genes have an important influence on behavior are called genetic determinists and hence their findings are ignored.   I don't see there is any doubt here that this is because they are portrayed as believing that genes and genes only are a necessary and sufficient cause of the behaviors. 

"Environmental factors are neither necessary nor decisive factors in mental illness."

I have to disagree here. Take for example, post-traumatic stress disorder. A traumatic event (i.e. an environmental factor) is absolutely necessary to induce the onset of PTSD. Genetic and other epigenetic physiological characteristics certainly influence an individual's risk for developing PTSD, but the single greatest risk factor for PTSD is lack of social support. Here's a study that demonstrates the effect of genes are limited in PTSD risk without a lack of social support (Kilpatrick et al., 2007, Am. J. Psychiatry 164(11):1693-9).

Dr. Gordon, I got your point.

Determinism  (environmental, social, genetical, whatsoever) is ALWAYS a problem in every science field. This is something that all of us have to avoid and fight. It has always existed, and many "simplified" papers have been used (specially by the media) in disinformation.

Some words have completely different meanings in general language when compared to scientifical speeching. Even among science fields it happens. I wouldn't care that much about the "determinant" on the paper.

And again, we can't criticise on a paper based on one phrase of the abstract of a psychiatry journal just because this tiny information do not mention the plurality of causes that might lead to mental illness.

"we can't criticise on a paper based on one phrase of the abstract of a psychiatry journal".

   What I am criticising is the word determinant in the title of the paper.  This implies deterministic factors, no more the case in social science than in genetics, eg

"When researchers began to critically examine the assumption that harmful early experiences almost always have long-lasting negative effects, the deterministic “cycle of abuse” weakened. The majority of children, they discovered, are resilient, eventually overcoming even the effects of war, childhood illness, having abusive parents, early deprivation, being sexually molested, or having alcoholic parents."

Carol Tavris  Skeptic.com  Mar 22 2017