For Psychology Weekly

Getting Your Work Into For Psychology Weekly Without Wasting Three Weeks

I spent about two years trying to get pieces accepted by For Psychology Weekly before I figured out what actually works. The submission process looks straightforward until you read their guidelines twice and realize they quietly changed the word count limit last quarter. Here is the current setup and what I learned from burning a few good drafts. They publish a mix of practitioner notes, literature summaries, and occasional opinion pieces rooted in clinical or counseling psychology. The tone leans toward accessible but rigorous — not pop-psych fluff, but also not a peer-reviewed journal. They want something a practicing therapist could read on a Tuesday morning without needing a coffee break mid-article. Most submissions fail because writers aim too academic or too casual. There is a middle ground, and it takes practice to hit it. First, you need an account on their portal. Use a professional email, not a Gmail address with your cat's name in it. They scan the subject line before opening the attachment, so format it as "Submission: [Your Title] — [Your Full Name]." Then go to their author guidelines page and download the template. Yes, they have one. Using it cuts the revision cycle from roughly four back-and-forths to maybe one.

The word limit is currently 1,200 to 1,800 words depending on the category. A standard commentary runs about 1,400. Anything under 1,000 gets flagged as insufficient depth. Anything over 2,000 gets sent back unless you are writing a book review. Keep your citations to a minimum — they prefer a short references section at the end, not parenthetical citations throughout. Three to six references is the sweet spot for most pieces. Upload your manuscript as a .docx file, not a PDF. The editor mentioned in a Q&A thread that PDFs cause issues with their markup tool, and I can confirm that from experience. My second submission sat in a folder for three weeks because they literally could not open it properly. Switched to docx and it was acknowledged within forty-eight hours.

The Real Problem Nobody Talks About

The biggest bottleneck is turnaround time. For Psychology Weekly typically responds within six to eight weeks, but if they send a revision request, that clock resets. I had a piece that went through two revision rounds — first cut took six weeks, second round another five. During the second round, I also realized the topic I picked (cognitive behavioral techniques for adolescent anxiety) had three other submissions already in process at the same time. The editor let me know directly that the field was saturated and suggested I pivot the angle. That pivot turned a potential rejection into acceptance, but only because I was willing to rewrite the entire introduction and literature grounding. My workaround was simple: before drafting anything, I searched their archive for the past twelve months of published pieces on similar topics. If three or more existed, I shelved the idea and moved to a different subject. This step alone probably saved me four months of waiting.

Structuring a Piece That Actually Gets Reviewed

They do not use blind peer review in the traditional sense. Your piece goes to an acquiring editor first, who decides whether it fits the current editorial calendar. This means the first page is everything. Start with a specific, concrete scenario — not a general question like "How do therapists handle resistance?" Start with something like "Last week, a client sat in silence for eleven minutes during our third session, and I had to decide whether to push or pull back." Editors want to see voice immediately. After the opening hook, state your thesis or main argument clearly within the first two paragraphs. They skim submissions. If they cannot identify what your piece is about by paragraph three, it gets filed under "unsure" and will likely languish until a seasonal cleanup. Include a brief author bio — one to two sentences mentioning your credentials and a relevant practice detail. I once wrote a bio that was entirely academic, and the editor wrote back asking me to trim it to something more grounded. They want to know you actually work in the field, not just study it.

Common Pitfalls That Sink Otherwise Good Submissions

The most common mistake I see is over-referencing. Writers treat For Psychology Weekly like an academic journal and load every claim with citations. It is not. Make the claim, drop one reference if needed, and move on. Another frequent error is writing in a way that assumes the reader has clinical training. Do not assume that. Write for an educated general audience that happens to be interested in psychology. Explain terms like "transference" or "cognitive restructuring" briefly in context rather than defining them formally. A subtler issue is the temptation to sound authoritative. Your piece does not need to resolve a major debate. In fact, For Psychology Weekly favors nuance over certainty. A piece that explores uncertainty in a therapeutic relationship tends to perform better than one that claims to have a definitive answer.

What to Expect After You Submit

You will receive an automated confirmation email. Within ten business days, you should get a human acknowledgment if the submission passed the initial screen. If you have not heard anything after three weeks, it is acceptable to send a polite inquiry to the submissions address. Do not send a follow-up before four weeks have passed. They receive more than you think. Rejection is usually brief and sometimes generic. I once received a rejection that was one line: "Not a fit for current editorial needs." That actually helped me later because I knew my topic overlap was the issue, not the quality of the writing. I resubmitted a revised piece two months later on a different theme and it was accepted.

For Psychology Weekly: Where Experience Matters More Than Formatting

The technical side of submitting is manageable once you know the quirks. The real work is producing a piece that sounds like it came from someone who has actually sat across from clients and thought carefully about what happened. That is hard to fake. If you have the clinical experience, the writing follows easier than you might expect.