AUTHOR GUIDELINES
Rooted in the Psych Congress community and events, Psych Congress Journal translates the most clinically relevant advances and emerging treatment paradigms in psychiatry into evidence-based and expert-informed insights that support excellence in patient care and clinical practice, while also addressing the real-world challenges of practice management and opportunities in career development.
Manuscripts are accepted for publication in Psych Congress Journal with the understanding that their content, all or in part, has not been and will not be published elsewhere, except in abstract form or by the express consent of the editorial team. Article types listed under “Peer Review” undergo external peer review; all other submissions are considered “Non-Peer Review” and are evaluated through editorial review. All submission-related correspondence will be received via email, and students and residents are welcome to submit items for consideration. Authors are encouraged to submit photos and/or indicate the availability of videos associated with their content as part of the original submission.
Preparing Your Manuscript At-A-Glance
Full title, all authors with post-nominal credentials, titles, affiliations, and city and state. Name one corresponding author with email and phone. Include word count and the number of tables and figures.
Manuscripts must be double-spaced, 12-point font, and include references, legends, and tables. Citations should be numbered consecutively throughout the entire paper.
Every listed author must have contributed substantially to the work and approved the submitted version. Use acknowledgments to recognize others. All authors disclose financial relationships which will be stated.
Submit figures as separate files at 300 dpi or higher (TIFF, EPS, or PNG). Number tables and figures in order of citation and supply a descriptive legend for each. All abbreviations must be identified at the end of the figure legend or within the table. Obtain written permission for any previously published material.
Use American Medical Association Style Guide (11th edition). Authors are responsible for ensuring that references are current, relevant, and derived from credible sources (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, clinical guidelines, or authoritative data sources). References should be listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the same order as cited in the text.
Case reports or associated content require written informed consent from patient(s) or legal representative(s), and identifying details must be removed. Do not alter clinical facts to obscure identity; omit them instead and indicate as such.
Article Types At-A-Glance
| TYPE | LENGTH | REFERENCES | REVIEW STATUS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original Research | 2,500–3,000 words | Up to 40 | Peer Reviewed |
| Clinical Review | 2,000–2,500 words | Up to 40 | Peer Reviewed |
| Case Report | 1,500–2,000 words | Up to 30 | Peer Reviewed |
| Practice Roadmap | 1,500–2,000 words | Up to 20 | Peer Reviewed |
| Letters to the Editors | 500 words | Up to 15 | Editorial review |
Word counts exclude the abstract, references, tables, and figure legends. If your manuscript falls outside these ranges but fits the journal's scope, query the editors before submitting.
Article Type Requirements
Original Research
Systematically investigates clinical questions related to treatment, diagnosis, or prognosis using data derived from patient populations. Authors are expected to present rigorous methodology, quantitative analysis, and clinically meaningful findings that inform real-world practice.
- Background Brief context and rationale for the study
- Objective/Purpose State the primary aim or hypothesis
- Methods Study design, setting, participants, and key analyses
- Results Key findings with relevant data (include P values where appropriate)
- Limitations Key study limitations, potential sources of bias, and factors affecting interpretation or generalizability of the findings
- Conclusion Primary takeaway and clinical relevance
- Introduction Summarize current knowledge on the topic and identify the relevant gap in the literature. State the primary objective or hypothesis of the study in a clear, specific sentence at the end of the Introduction. If applicable, include secondary objectives. Avoid vague or exploratory language; the objective should reflect a focused, testable research question.
- Methods Include information on the study design, number of participants, demographics description, description of experiments or treatment, follow-up care, and, if applicable, any statistical analysis.
- Results Present the study findings in a clear, logical sequence without interpretation. Report participant characteristics and baseline data, followed by primary and secondary outcomes. Include relevant statistical results (eg, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and P values) and reference tables or figures where appropriate. Avoid duplicating data in both text and tables. Only include data generated from the study; do not discuss implications or compare with existing literature.
- Limitations Briefly outline key constraints of the study, including potential sources of bias, methodological limitations, and factors that may affect the interpretation or generalizability of the findings.
- Discussion Interpret the findings in the context of existing literature, explain their clinical relevance, and address implications for practice. Do not merely restate results. Include a dedicated limitations paragraph and a concise, 1-paragraph conclusion summarizing the primary takeaway.
Solving Clinical Challenges Case Report
Presents a challenging clinical situation or treatment approach encountered in an author’s own practice. Authors are asked to provide a detailed narrative coupled with robust analysis of the episode of care. Case series (more than one case presentation) can be submitted, and a summation of the series should be included within the discussion and conclusion sections.
- Introduction In a single sentence, describe the patient (age, gender, etc), the presentation, and where the patient presented.
- Case Description The Case Description section should tell a story in chronological order so the reader can easily follow the narrative. Although each case will present a unique set of details, submissions in general may include the below in this section:
- Presenting signs, symptoms, and complaints from the patient.
- Relevant patient medical history, relevant family medical history, and/or personal history relevant to the case.
- Medication use and listing of relevant medications.
- Differential diagnoses, any associated challenges, and steps taken to overcome them.
- Treatments, any associated challenges, and steps taken to overcome them. Describe the intervention(s), treatments (dosage, strength, duration, and frequency), and management protocols used, as well as any changes made in therapeutic interventions with explanations.
- Outcome and follow ups. Review treatment results and clinician- and patient-assessed outcomes. Include intervention adherence and tolerability, and how this was assessed, as well as any adverse and unanticipated events.
- Follow-up. Describe follow-up and associated time periods.
- Discussion Provide an overview of the challenges faced in this case, how this case differed from normative presentations, and the clinical insights to share from the case. Include the strengths and limitations in your approach in this case, as well as discussion of the relevant medical literature, if applicable. The overview should include why this case matters and what it reveals to clinicians.
- Conclusion Provide a take-home statement on what the author learned from this case, or what clinicians should be aware of or may do differently because of this case.
Clinical Review
Provides a summary or overview of a select clinical topic of interest to the psychiatry community.
Authors are encouraged to follow the structure below to ensure consistency and clarity:
- Introduction Provide a concise overview of the topic or disease state, clearly establishing its clinical relevance and the purpose/scope of the review. Highlight why this topic matters now (e.g., emerging data, evolving standards of care, or gaps in practice).
- Epidemiology Summarize the prevalence, incidence, and key demographic or risk factors associated with the condition. Include any notable trends, disparities, or changes over time that inform clinical awareness.
- Clinical Features and Diagnosis Describe the hallmark signs and symptoms, typical clinical presentation, and recommended diagnostic approach. Include relevant screening tools, diagnostic criteria, and important differential diagnoses where appropriate.
- Treatment and Management Outline current evidence-based treatment strategies, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. Provide practical details on selection, dosing, duration, monitoring, and considerations for special populations or treatment sequencing. Include long-term outlooks on future treatments if applicable.
- Conclusion Summarize the most important clinical takeaways, reinforcing key points that should influence practice. Focus on actionable insights and remaining gaps for future research.
- Clinical Pearls Include a brief set of 3–5 concise, high-yield takeaways that highlight practical, practice-changing insights. These should go beyond summary and emphasize what clinicians should do differently or pay particular attention to in real-world settings.
Practice Roadmap
Provides actionable guidance on key practice management topics across the lifecycle of a psychiatric practice—from launch to optimization to scaling. Articles should translate real-world experience and operational insight into practical, implementable strategies for clinicians.
- Introduction Provide a brief overview of the practice management topic, clearly defining the issue and relevance to current clinical practice.
- Background & Current Landscape Summarize the broader context, including key trends, policy considerations, or systemic challenges shaping this issue. Use data or references to frame why the topic is important now.
- Key Considerations in Practice Describe the key issues, available approaches, and real-world implications for clinicians.
- Controversies or Areas of Variation Highlight areas where there is no single best approach or where practices differ. Discuss tradeoffs, differing perspectives, and factors that may influence decision-making.
- Practical Applications Translate insights into practice by outlining key strategies, considerations, or examples of how clinicians or practices are addressing this issue. Brief case examples or scenarios may be included.
- Future Directions Briefly describe emerging trends, innovations, or policy changes that may impact this area. Emphasize how clinicians can prepare for or adapt to these developments.
- Conclusion Summarize the most important insights and reinforce key considerations for clinical practice. Focus on clarity and applicability rather than repetition.
- Practice Pearls Provide 4–6 concise, high-yield takeaways that emphasize actionable insights or key considerations for clinicians.
- Practice Checklist Offer a brief checklist or summary of factors clinicians should evaluate when addressing this issue in their own practice.
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor should primarily respond to articles published in Psych Congress Journal and provide constructive critique, clarification, or additional perspective. Submissions should be timely and evidence-based and will be reviewed and selected for publication by the editors. Letters referencing topics unrelated to a published topic, providing redundant summaries without added insight, or presented in an unprofessional, partisan, or disrespectful tone will not be accepted. At the discretion of the editors, the corresponding author of any referenced article may be invited to submit a reply. Authors will be given a defined period to respond; however, a decision not to reply will not delay or preclude publication of the original letter. Psych Congress Journal reserves the right to publish letters with or without an author response.
Editorial Policies
In the Submission Portal, the submitting author will be asked to electronically respond to inquiries and acknowledgements of the following:
- Approval from all authors to submit the manuscript.
- Any current/previous submission or presentation of the material.
- Financial disclosures and conflicts of interest. As a matter of editorial policy, we will not publish manuscripts that have been written by, or whose development was funded by, a pharmaceutical company, public relations agency, or similar outside source without full disclosure.
- The content of Psych Congress Journal is protected by copyright. All manuscripts submitted for publication must include electronic signature/acknowledgement of the copyright statement in the submission portal by the submitting author and on behalf of all coauthors.
- Descriptions, photographs, and/or video should not contain patient personal identifiers of any kind. The author must provide a signed statement of informed consent from the patient, or parent/legal guardian (as applicable) if publication of any such information is essential and clinically relevant to the manuscript.
- Opinions expressed by authors are their own and not necessarily those of HMP Global, the editorial staff, or Clinical Editors. No claims made by authors or advertisers are guaranteed by the publisher or the editors.
- Disclosure of the use of a medical writer or artificial intelligence (AI) in part, or in whole, to create the manuscript.
- Author criteria assurance.
- Author Agreement, including copyright.
Plagiarism Screening
Plagiarism is defined as the misappropriation of language, ideas, or thoughts of another without attributing proper credit, or obtaining permission, to use the published or unpublished source material and representing the work as one’s own. Psych Congress Journal uses iThenticate to verify the originality of manuscripts submitted for consideration. By submitting your manuscript, you agree to a plagiarism screening and all submissions will be screened for plagiarism before undergoing peer review.
References: World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. World Association of Medical Editors. Accessed April 10, 2022. https://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accessed April 10, 2022. https://publicationethics.org/
Policy on Use of AI in Manuscripts
- AI tools cannot be listed as authors of manuscripts.
- Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the content and data within their manuscript, including any sections/references generated by AI tools.
- Authors may use tools such as grammar and spell check that are built into word processing programs and do not need to declare the use of such tools.
- The journal does not permit the use of AI-generated images or videos in submitted manuscripts, including but not limited to figures, illustrations, radiological images, histological slides, and visual abstracts. This policy is intended to uphold the integrity, reproducibility, and accuracy of the visual content presented in scientific work.
- An exception may be made when the manuscript’s primary focus is on artificial intelligence itself, and the AI-generated visual content is directly relevant to the subject matter under discussion. In such cases, the images or videos will be subject to editorial review and evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure appropriateness, transparency, and scientific rigor.
- Authors must clearly disclose when any visual content has been generated or modified using AI tools and provide details regarding the method, model, and data used to produce the content.
Corrections & Amendments
Psych Congress Journal is committed to upholding the quality of its published content and the integrity of its review process. While we strive for the highest standards, we acknowledge that, on occasion, corrections or retractions may be necessary. In addressing these situations, Psych Congress Journal adheres to recognized best practices and follows guidance from COPE.
Further details on our policies and procedures are outlined below.
- Author Corrections Authors who identify significant errors in their published work should promptly contact the Psych Congress Journal as soon as possible. The corresponding authors should clearly communicate the error(s) and if new data/information can or will be provided. Psych Congress Journal editorial team, including Clinical Editors, will review the published article and the information from the authors to decide the appropriate approach to rectify the error.
- Expressions of Concern If a revision or correction will be undertaken and may take some time and may involve further peer review (for example, if it is a data error or other fundamental error that may require a significant revision to the article by the authors), Psych Congress Journal will publish an Expression of Concern to alert its readership that the article is being evaluated to correct a substantial error. The authors will be responsible for the additional research and revisions to the article and will have to address any comments from the additional peer review process.
- If a revision or correction will be undertaken that is relatively minor and easy to fix (for example, a typo that changed the interpretation or meaning), Psych Congress Journal will revise it immediately and add a note that the article has been revised, with details about the revision and the date of the revision. A formal correction notice will then be published in the next available issue of Psych Congress Journal. The authors will approve the revised article and the correction notice for accuracy prior to publication.
- Corrigenda and Errata Notices will be labeled as corrigendum if it was an error introduced during the editing or production process after submission. Notices will be labeled as erratum if it was an error present in the initial submission (data or otherwise).
- Retractions If the Psych Congress Journal Editorial team determines that retraction is the most appropriate course of action guided by established best practices, they will collaborate with the authors to prepare a formal retraction notice. This notice will be published online without delay, making the retraction effective immediately. The article will be clearly marked as retracted, including the date of retraction, and appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that indexing services and databases reflect the article’s retracted status.
- Reader-Identified Errors If a reader believes they have found a substantive error in a Psych Congress Journal article, they should contact the editorial team as soon as possible with the article DOI, title, and the nature of the error they believe they have found and as many additional details as possible. Psych Congress Journal editorial team, including the Clinical Editors, will review the information. If they agree with the reader or cannot determine the accuracy of the information, they will reach out to the authors either to request a response, a revision, or to ask the authors to address the reader concerns and explain if there was a misunderstanding or if a correction is needed. If it was a misunderstanding or can be easily explained, the reader and authors may be invited to formally document this discussion as a Letter to the Editor and a Response Letter from the authors. If it is determined there is an error, the remainder of the process will follow the steps outlined in the previous section.
Thank you for your interest in submitting your work to Psych Congress Journal!
Submit your manuscript for an upcoming issue
Questions? Contact the editorial team regarding content fit or format prior to submission.