How we work
Our team of in-house editors, art editors, production editors and proofreaders work together with authors to produce authoritative, accessible, high-quality articles; see a visual summary of the editorial process.
While the majority of content (see below for content types) in Nature Reviews Psychology will be commissioned by our editors, we do welcome proposals. Advice on how to pitch can be found on this blog post.
A Review is an authoritative, balanced survey of recent developments in a research field. Although Reviews should be recognized as scholarly by specialists in the field, they should be written to be accessible to non-specialist readers. Reviews should therefore be presented using simple prose and should avoid using excessive jargon and technical detail. The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single research institution and particularly not by the authors' own work.
Reviews are approximately 6,000 words long and typically include 5–7 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Reviews include up to 150 references; citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Reviews.
Reviews are peer reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance. They are edited by the editors in consultation with the author.
Perspectives are intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models, theories and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new approaches.
Perspectives are approximately 5,000 words long and may include up to 5 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Perspectives include approximately 100 references; citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Further information is available in our guidelines for Perspectives.
Perspectives are peer reviewed and edited by the editors in consultation with the author.
Comment articles can focus on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues in the psychological sciences. These pieces are intended to be agenda-setting, authoritative and informed and can be provocative articles that call for action on topical issues. In the latter case, the Comment must propose a solution rather than simply snapshot a problem.
Single-author articles are preferred as this is an 'opinion' section of the journal. Comment articles should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. Comments are typically no longer than 1,300 words and may have up to 10 references. A single display item (figure, table or box) can be included if necessary. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Comments.
Comments may be peer reviewed at the editor’s discretion.
The Correspondence section provides a forum for comment on content published in the journal and might be accompanied by a reply from the authors of the original article.
A Correspondence should not exceed 500 words or 10 references. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Correspondence. Correspondence may be peer reviewed at the editor’s discretion.