Submitting to For Psychology Monthly
I first ran into this publication when a colleague pointed me toward their submission guidelines for a piece on cognitive behavioral techniques in early intervention. The process was not unpleasant, but it was very specific about what they wanted and what they rejected. Most people don't read the guidelines all the way through. The first thing you need to understand is that this is not an academic journal. It sits somewhere between a trade magazine and a popular science publication. The audience is practicing clinicians, students, and interested laypeople. That changes everything about how you write and what you pitch. The submission process starts on their website under the Contributors section. You will find a brief article template, word count guidelines, and a list of preferred topics. The standard article runs between 1,200 and 2,000 words. Long-form features can go up to 3,000 but those require editorial approval before you write a single word.
I learned this the hard way. I wrote a full 2,800-word manuscript on attachment theory and child development, sent it in cold, and received a polite rejection within a week. The editor noted that the piece was too theoretical for their readership and suggested I either substantially revise it to include more practical application or pitch a different angle entirely. That feedback turned out to be useful. I rewrote the piece with concrete case examples and clinical takeaways, resubmitted it three months later, and it ran.
How the Review Process Actually Works
Unlike peer-reviewed journals, For Psychology Monthly uses a modified editorial review rather than double-blind peer review. Submissions are screened by the editorial team for fit, tone, and accuracy. Acceptable pieces then go to a subject-matter reviewer, usually a practicing psychologist or researcher who checks factual claims and methodology references. The typical turnaround is four to eight weeks. I have seen some come back in two weeks and others take twelve. It depends on the editor's workload and whether your piece requires substantive revision. One thing that catches people off guard: they will ask for revisions even on good submissions. This is normal and not a bad sign. My second submission got two rounds of edits. The first round requested that I add citations for three claims and rephrase a section that came across as overly diagnostic without context. The second round was about tightening the language and removing jargon. Both rounds were handled through email and took about ten days each. The entire process from final submission to publication took roughly nine weeks.
Get the Full Details
What They Look For
Practical relevance is the single most important factor. An article needs to answer the question a clinician or student will have after reading it. What can I do differently? What should I watch out for? What does this research mean for my practice? They reject pieces that read like literature reviews with no clear point. A comprehensive summary of twenty studies on mindfulness without a thesis or actionable takeaway will not pass screening. The same goes for opinion pieces that lack grounding in current research. You can offer perspective, but you need citations to back it up. The tone should be professional but accessible. Avoid the kind of language you would use in a dissertation defense. Write like you are explaining a concept to a colleague at a coffee shop, not presenting at a conference. Passive voice is fine when it makes sense, but front-load your verbs. Readers skip sentences that start with "It has been observed that..."
Citation Standards
The publication generally follows APA 7th edition formatting. However, they are more relaxed about in-text citations than academic journals. You do not need a citation for every sentence. Group citations where appropriate and reserve them for specific claims, statistics, and direct references to research findings. The reference list at the end should be complete and accurate. I once submitted a draft with a reference list that had formatting errors mixed in with correct entries. The copy editor fixed most of it but flagged five references that were incomplete or unverifiable. I had to track down the original sources and confirm details. This took an extra week and taught me to double-check every entry before submitting. Use a reference manager if you can. It saves time and reduces errors significantly.
Common Mistakes
Here are the problems I see repeatedly in submissions: Overpromising on results. Phrases like "studies prove" or "this will change your practice" are red flags. Research rarely supports that kind of certainty. Use "suggests," "indicates," or "may help" where appropriate. Your credibility depends on precision, not hype. Ignoring recent literature. If your article references only studies from before 2018 on a topic that has evolved substantially, it will look outdated. Check for systematic reviews published in the last three years and incorporate relevant findings.
Writing for the wrong audience. Some contributors assume the readership consists of academics. They write with excessive jargon and methodological detail that a practicing therapist has no need for. The opposite mistake also happens. Some pitches are so simplified that they strip away the nuance that makes the content useful. Aim for the middle ground.
A Specific Edge Case I Dealt With
On my third submission, I encountered a problem that the guidelines did not address. I was writing about a therapeutic technique that involved a copyrighted assessment instrument. The publisher requires permission for reproducing any adapted materials, and I had not secured that before submitting. The editorial team caught it during screening and put my piece on hold. I had two choices: remove the adapted instrument entirely and rewrite the relevant section, or request permission from the copyright holder. I chose the second option. The process took about three weeks. The organization charged a small fee and required me to include a specific attribution line in the published piece. Once that was resolved, the article moved forward normally. The lesson here is to think about intellectual property issues before you submit, not after.
Payment and Rights
The publication pays on acceptance, not on publication. The rate is modest by academic publishing standards but competitive for a nonprofit-oriented magazine. They request first serial rights and archive rights. You retain copyright. This is standard and not something to push back on unless you have a specific reason to negotiate. If you are a student or early-career professional, having a piece in this publication carries weight. It signals that you can translate research into accessible writing, which is a skill many employers value. For established clinicians, it is more of a visibility play. Both paths are valid.
Final Practical Notes
Read three or four recent articles from the publication before you pitch anything. This will give you a sense of the expected tone, structure, and depth. The editorial voice is consistent across issues and you can calibrate your writing to match it. Do not submit the same piece to multiple outlets simultaneously. They explicitly state this in their guidelines and violating it will burn a bridge. If your piece is rejected, you are free to submit it elsewhere, but wait for the formal rejection before moving on. Keep a tracking spreadsheet. Submission date, topic, status, revision requests, and final publication date. I have been doing this for two years and it has saved me from forgetting follow-up deadlines and duplicate submissions. It is a small system that prevents a lot of avoidable mistakes.
