American Psychologist ® , established in 1946, is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. As such, American Psychologist publishes current and timely high-impact papers of broad interest. These papers include empirical reports, meta-analyses, and other types of scholarly reviews. Topics cover psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Contributions often address issues of national and international significance, both with regard to the profession of psychology and its relationship to society at large. Published articles are written in a style that is accessible to all psychologists and the public.
American Psychologist welcomes submissions. Please refer to the submission guidelines section for details on types of submissions and editorial requirements.
Disclaimer: APA and the editors of the American Psychologist ® assume no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by the authors of its articles.
American Psychologist supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. More information on these initiatives is available under EDI Efforts.
The APA Journals Program is committed to publishing transparent, rigorous research; improving reproducibility in science; and aiding research discovery. Open science practices vary per editor discretion. View the initiatives implemented by this journal.
Each issue of American Psychologist will highlight one article by selecting it as an “Editor’s Choice” paper. The chosen manuscript will be included in a newsletter sent to APA members and nonmembers alike. The articles will be made available free of charge for 30 days to newsletter recipients. The selection of Editor’s Choice articles is at the discretion of the editors, based on their determination that the paper has great potential to impact the future direction of psychological science and science-based practice.
Explore journal highlights: free article summaries, editor interviews and editorials, journal awards, mentorship opportunities, and more.
expand all Submission GuidelinesPrior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. We realize that there are numerous guidelines, however, please note that manuscripts that do not conform to these submission guidelines upon receipt will be returned without review.
Please submit manuscripts electronically via the American Psychologist ® Manuscript Submission Portal. Manuscripts should use the Microsoft Word (.docx) or LaTex (.tex) word processing program submitted as a zip file with an accompanying Portable Document Format (.pdf) of the manuscript file.
Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7 th edition. Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual). APA Style and Grammar Guidelines for the 7 th edition are available.
Keep a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss. Do not submit manuscripts via mail, fax, or email. Because institutional spam filters may occasionally capture files from the APA and Editorial Manager, please take the following steps to facilitate communication with our editorial office:
General correspondence may be directed to the editorial office.
Be aware that American Psychologist uses a software system to screen submitted content for similarity with other published content.
The cover letter should:
On the submission portal you will be asked to provide contact information for three scholars who are qualified to serve as unbiased reviewers for your paper. These individuals:
Synchronous Review, Duplicate, and Piecemeal Publication APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications (see Section 1.20, Conflict of Interest, Publication Manual, 7 th Edition)
APA policy prohibits publication of any manuscript that has already been published in whole or substantial part elsewhere. Authors have an obligation to consult journal editors if there is any question concerning prior publication of part or all of their submitted manuscripts.
In light of changing patterns of scientific knowledge dissemination, APA requires authors to provide information on prior dissemination of the data and narrative interpretations of the data/research appearing in the manuscript (e.g., if some or all were presented at a conference or meeting, posted on a listserv, shared on a website or through social media, including academic social networks like ResearchGate, etc.). This information (2–4 sentences) must be provided as part of the Author Note.
Authors who have posted their manuscripts to preprint archives, such as PsyArXiv, prior to submission should include a link to the preprint in the Author Note.
When a manuscript contains data that are part of a larger study, the cover letter should describe the larger study and provide references for other study papers. Authors must be prepared to provide copies of related manuscripts when requested as part of the editorial review process. Authors should clarify the relationship between their paper and others from the same study, including detailed specification of the overlap in participants, measures, and analysis. The value-added scientific contribution of their study must be clearly stated in the cover letter.
When a manuscript contains data that are part of a larger study, authors should describe the larger study and provide references for other study papers. Authors must be prepared to provide copies of related manuscripts when requested as part of the editorial review process. Authors should clarify the relationship between their paper, including detailed specification of the overlap in participants, measures, and analysis, and others from the study. The value-added scientific contribution of their study must be clearly stated in the cover letter.
All research involving human participants must describe oversight of the research process by the relevant Institutional Review Boards and should describe consent and assent procedures briefly in the Method section. All statistical tests should include effect size whenever possible.
First-person language ("I", "we") should be avoided. Terminology should be sensitive to the individual who has a disease or disability. The journal endorses the concept of "people first, not their disability." Terminology should reflect the "person with a disability" (e.g., children with diabetes, persons with HIV infection, families of people with cancer) rather than the condition as an adjective (e.g., diabetic children, HIV patients, cancer families). Nonsexist language should be used.
It is important to highlight the significance and novel contribution of the work.
AP considers submissions of the following types, described below:
AP considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, including manuscripts on national and international policy issues. Topics should be current, timely, and of interest to the broad APA membership. Manuscripts should be written in a style that is accessible and of interest to all psychologists, regardless of area of specialization.
AP publishes high-impact empirical studies with broad relevance for the field of psychology. Successful papers should contain original results of rigorous empirical research studies with implications for psychological theory and/or practice. Examples include results of large multi-site intervention trials, data-driven reports that advance the theory or practice of psychology, and meta-analyses on topics of broad relevance to the field.
Replications: To promote replication of empirical research, AP will consider manuscripts reporting on replications of empirical studies previously published in AP, subject to standard peer review. The title of such submissions should indicate that the study is a replication.
AP publishes high-quality historical scholarship on topics of broad interest to psychologists. Successful historical papers should make an original argument, engage appropriate historical methods, and elaborate the implications of the historical analysis for the understanding of the topic, event, figure, or development under discussion. View additional guidelines.
American Psychologist occasionally receives manuscripts on topics that can be viewed by psychologists from multiple perspectives. These topics can lead to varying interpretations regarding the evidence and its implications for psychological theory, practice, and training. Manuscripts covering topics of this nature are evaluated using the same criteria as regular submissions.
In the spirit of transparency and the collegial exchange of ideas, comments, and reactions to topics in focus articles and a response from the article’s authors will be published along with the article. Articles appearing as topics in focus will be chosen at the discretion of the editors, as will the invited commenters. This does not preclude continued discussion of topics in focus articles in the comments section of the journal.
Commentaries on articles recently published in American Psychologist will be considered and are subject to peer review. Commentaries should provide new and important information on the same topic as the original paper. The goal of the comment should be clearly stated in the first paragraph. Commentaries may present data or other evidence in support of their intended point(s).
A commentary should be submitted no later than 3 months from the online posting date of the article to which it responds. If submitted later, authors must present a strong rationale for considering a comment beyond the standard time frame.
Commentaries on APA board, committee, and task force reports also will be considered for publication regardless of whether the report or a summary has been published in American Psychologist. These must be submitted within three months of the website update on which the report first appeared and provide new and important information related to the topic of the report.
American Psychologist will also consider commentaries meeting the above criteria on more general issues related to the operation of APA’s publishing practices (e.g., journal article reporting standards, APA Style). These need not be related to particular published articles and should not be related to the disposition of particular manuscripts.
Commentaries must be limited to 1,000 words (about five double-spaced text pages). Up to 10 references should be provided and are not included in the word count. Comments should include an abstract and keywords. The title of the commentary should consist of a brief content-related title followed by a subtitle that identifies the target article, as in "Brief Content-Related Title: Commentary on Authors (20xx)." Commentaries should follow APA style. Authors of comments must disclose in their cover letter any real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the authors of the original paper. Commentaries are customarily handled by the action editor for the original manuscript.
Commentary submissions that meet journal standards for further consideration will be peer reviewed. Authors may be asked to revise the commentary. If a commentary is deemed acceptable for publication, authors of the original submission are typically given the opportunity to reply to the commentary. Commentaries are published in the earliest possible issue of the journal.
Many of the association reports traditionally published in AP have relocated to the APA website. Task force and committee reports may be considered for publication but should be adapted to follow AP manuscript guidelines and, like other manuscript submissions, are subject to external peer review. Practice guidelines that have been adopted as APA policy by the Council of Representatives are published in AP within journal manuscript length guidelines.
Manuscript submissions for the “In Memoriam” section are by invitation only. Candidates for obituaries are selected by the associate editor for historical scholarship with the input of the AP Obituary Advisory Committee. Individuals are encouraged to contact the associate editor for historical scholarship and chair of the Obituaries Advisory Committee, Joshua Clegg, PhD, with recommendations, noting that a recommendation is not a guarantee that an obituary will be commissioned. Recommendations should be submitted using this form.
Feature sections devoted to a particular topic are one means of fulfilling the journal’s mission. A special section of the journal may contain three or four papers on a single theme, and a special issue may contain somewhat more papers, depending on the content area.
Proposals for special sections or special issues should describe their scope and provide a rationale (including why such a section or issue is timely and what contribution it would make to the literature). If there are proposed paper topics and/or potential authors, please indicate these. Potential authors should not be recruited until a proposal is accepted. An open call is expected for all special issues, and all papers will undergo a selection process.
Proposals for special sections or issues should be submitted to the AP editor prior to developing manuscripts. Please use the form found at the following link and submit this to the editor with CVs of prospective guest editors:
Those proposals of interest will proceed through a multiple-step review process. Proposals are first reviewed by the editor-in-chief. Proposals may be circulated to two or three individuals for review.
Among the factors used in considering a proposal are:
If a proposal is approved, an AP associate editor will be assigned as an advisory editor of the package. The proposal author will be responsible for recruiting authors through an open call for papers requesting letters of intent, from which guest editors will select qualified papers to be developed and submitted. Editorial decisions about each manuscript in a special package are made separately.
The APA Publication Manual (7th ed.), which stipulates that "authorship encompasses…not only persons who do the writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study." In the spirit of transparency and openness, American Psychologist has adopted the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to describe each author's individual contributions to the work. CRediT offers authors the opportunity to share an accurate and detailed description of their diverse contributions to a manuscript.
Submitting authors will be asked to identify the contributions of all authors at initial submission according to the CRediT taxonomy. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the CRediT designations will be published as an author contributions statement in the author note of the final article. All authors should have reviewed and agreed to their individual contribution(s) before submission.
CRediT includes 14 contributor roles, as described below:
Authors can claim credit for more than one contributor role, and the same role can be attributed to more than one author. Not all roles will be applicable to any particular scholarly work.
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7th edition.
Manuscripts must not exceed 35 double-spaced pages in length, including the title page, abstract, references, tables, and figures. Requests may be made for a small and specific number of additional pages when a strong rationale is presented (e.g., multiple studies, particularly complex new methodology). Requests must be made to the editor prior to submission.
All regular submissions must include an abstract containing no more than 250 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, the submitting author should supply (a) up to five keywords or brief phrases and (b) a public significance statement (for Guidelines, see section on public significance statements below).
Authors are expected to avoid bias in their writing (see Chapter 5 of the 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual). Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language.
Authors should review the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Updated in 2018, the standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.
JARS-Qual offers guidance to researchers using qualitative methods such as narrative data, grounded theory, phenomenological, critical, discursive, performative, ethnographic, consensual qualitative, case study, psychobiography, and thematic analysis approaches.
The guidelines focus on transparency in methods reporting, recommending descriptions of how the researcher’s own perspective affected the study, as well as the contexts in which the research and analysis took place.
Authors should also review the new Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC). Meant for all authors, regardless of research topic, JARS–REC include standards for all stages of research and manuscript writing, on, for example:
All research involving human and non-human participants must describe oversight of the research process by the relevant Institutional Review Boards. For human participants, the consent and assent procedures should be described briefly in the method section.
Authors should also use language that is free of bias, or the implied or irrelevant evaluation of the individual, groups, or groups the authors are writing about. A discussion of the use of descriptors involving age, disability, gender participation in research, race and ethnic identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and intersectionality can be found in Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual.
First-person language ("I", "we") should be avoided.
The abstract and method section of each empirical report must contain a detailed description of the study participants, including (but not limited to) the following:
The method section also must include a statement describing how informed consent was obtained from the participants (or their parents/guardians) and indicate that the study was conducted in compliance with an appropriate Internal Review Board.
All statistical tests should include effect size whenever possible.
In a subsection of the discussion titled "Constraints on generality," authors should include a detailed discussion of the limits on generality (see Simons, Shoda, & Lindsay, 2017). In this section, authors should detail grounds for concluding why the results are may or may not be specific to the characteristics of the participants. They should address limits on generality not only for participants but for materials, procedures, and context. Authors should also specify which methods they think could be varied without affecting the result and which should remain constant.
To promote the accessibility of article content to broad and diverse audiences, authors should provide two to three brief sentences regarding the relevance or public health significance of the manuscript. The statement should be written in language that is easily understood by the public.
The public significance statement should be included within the manuscript on the abstract/keywords page.
Prior to acceptance and publication, public significance statements will be reviewed for accuracy and adherence to these standards.
List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the references section.
Examples of basic reference formats:
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review, 126(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126
Brown, L. S. (2018). Feminist therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000092-000
Balsam, K. F., Martell, C. R., Jones. K. P., & Safren, S. A. (2019). Affirmative cognitive behavior therapy with sexual and gender minority people. In G. Y. Iwamasa & P. A. Hays (Eds.), Culturally responsive cognitive behavior therapy: Practice and supervision (2nd ed., pp. 287–314). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000119-012
All data, program code and other methods should be cited in the text and listed in the References section:
Alegria, M., Jackson, J. S., Kessler, R. C., & Takeuchi, D. (2016). Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), 2001–2003 [Data set]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20240.v8
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/
Wickham, H. et al., (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Use Word’s Insert Table function when you create tables. Using spaces or tabs in your table will create problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors. Each table should be presented on a separate page following the Reference list.
Preferred formats for graphics files are TIFF and JPG, and preferred format for vector-based files is EPS. Graphics downloaded or saved from web pages are not acceptable for publication. Multipanel figures (i.e., figures with parts labeled a, b, c, d, etc.) should be assembled into one file. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.
Resolution
Line weights
APA offers authors the option to publish their figures online in color without the costs associated with print publication of color figures.
The same caption will appear on both the online (color) and print (black and white) versions. To ensure that the figure can be understood in both formats, authors should add alternative wording (e.g., “the red (dark gray) bars represent”) as needed.
For authors who prefer their figures to be published in color both in print and online, original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay:
Authors are strongly encouraged to use MathType (third-party software) or Equation Editor 3.0 (built into pre-2007 versions of Word) to construct your equations, rather than the equation support that is built into Word 2007 and Word 2010. Equations composed with the built-in Word 2007/Word 2010 equation support are converted to low-resolution graphics when they enter the production process and must be rekeyed by the typesetter, which may introduce errors.
To construct your equations with MathType or Equation Editor 3.0:
Because altering computer code in any way (e.g., indents, line spacing, line breaks, page breaks) during the typesetting process could alter its meaning, we treat computer code differently from the rest of the article in the production process. Supply separate files for computer code.
Runnable source code should be included as supplemental material to the article. For more information, visit supplementing your article with online material.
If authors would like to include code in the text of the published article, submit a separate file with your code exactly as it should appear, using Courier New font with a type size of 8 points. An image will be made of each segment of code in your article that exceeds 40 characters in length. (Shorter snippets of code that appear in text will be typeset in Courier New and run in with the rest of the text.) If an appendix contains a mix of code and explanatory text, please submit a file that contains the entire appendix, with the code keyed in 8-point Courier New.
Authors who feel that their manuscript may benefit from additional academic writing or language editing support prior to submission are encouraged to seek out such services at their host institutions, engage with colleagues and subject matter experts, and/or consider several vendors that offer discounts to APA authors. Please note that APA does not endorse or take responsibility for the service providers listed. It is strictly a referral service.
Use of such service is not mandatory for publication in an APA journal. Use of one or more of these services does not guarantee selection for peer review, manuscript acceptance, or preference for publication in any APA journal.
APA can place supplemental materials online, available via the published article in the APA PsycArticles ® database. Please see supplementing your article with online material for more details.
Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including test materials (or portions thereof), photographs, and other graphic images (including those used as stimuli in experiments). On advice of counsel, APA may decline to publish any image whose copyright status is unknown.
The AP review process is handled by the editor-in-chief (EIC) and associate editors. All papers are read initially by the EIC or an action editor and a determination is made regarding whether to initiate peer review for the paper. Considerations include the fit of the manuscript with the AP Editorial Coverage Statement including sufficient breadth and potential significance and impact, adherence to the instructions to authors, and the written quality of the paper. Papers that are sent for peer review are read by members of the editorial board and ad hoc reviewers selected by the action editor for the paper.
As a matter of policy, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept anonymous. Manuscripts that are peer-reviewed are circulated without their title pages to keep the identity of the authors unknown to reviewers. Each copy of a manuscript should include a separate title page with authors’ names and affiliations, and these should not appear anywhere else on the manuscript. Footnotes that identify the authors should be typed on a separate page. Authors are to make every effort to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to their identities, including grant numbers, names of institutions providing IRB approval, self-citations, and links to online repositories for data, materials, code, or preregistrations (e.g., Create a View-only Link for a Project).
Authors should state all sources of financial support for the conduct of the research (e.g., “This research was supported by Award XX from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Human Development”) in the Author Note. If the funding source was involved in any other aspects of the research (e.g., study design, analysis, interpretation, writing), then clearly state the role. If the funding source had no other involvement other than financial support, then simply state that the funding source had no other role other than financial support.
Authors should also provide a conflict of interest statement in the Author Note disclosing any real or potentially perceived conflict(s) of interest, including financial, personal, or other relationships with other organizations or companies that may inappropriately impact or influence the research and interpretation of the findings. If there are no conflicts of interest, this should be clearly stated.
APA endorses the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines developed by the Center for Open Science (Nosek et al., 2015). The TOP guidelines cover eight fundamental aspects of research planning and reporting that can be followed at three levels of compliance:
Empirical research, including meta-analyses, submitted to American Psychologist must at least meet the “requirement” level for seven of the eight aspects of research planning and reporting. Data transparency must meet the “disclosure” level. Authors should include a subsection in their methods description titled “Transparency and Openness.” This subsection should detail the efforts the authors have made to comply with the TOP guidelines.
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study, and the study follows JARS (Appelbaum, et al., 2018). All data, analysis code, and research materials are available at [stable link to permanent repository]. Data were analyzed using R, version 4.0.0 (R Core Team, 2020) and the package ggplot, version 3.2.1 (Wickham, 2016). This study’s design and its analysis were not pre-registered.
Authors must state whether data, code, and study materials are posted to a trusted repository and, if so, how to access them, including their location and any limitations on use. For materials and code, if they cannot be made available, authors must state the legal or ethical reasons why they are not available. Trusted repositories adhere to policies that make data discoverable, accessible, usable, and preserved for the long term. Trusted repositories also assign unique and persistent identifiers. Recommended repositories include APA’s repository on the Open Science Framework (OSF), or authors can access a full list of other recommended repositories.
In a subsection titled “Transparency and Openness” at the end of the method section, specify whether and where the data and materials are available or note the legal or ethical reasons for not doing so. For submissions with quantitative or simulation analytic methods, state whether the study analysis code is posted to a trusted repository, and, if so, how to access it (or the legal or ethical reason why it is not available).
Preregistration of studies and specific hypotheses can be a useful tool for making strong theoretical claims. Likewise, preregistration of analysis plans can be useful for distinguishing confirmatory and exploratory analyses. Investigators are encouraged to preregister their studies and analysis plans prior to conducting the research via a publicly accessible registry system (e.g., OSF, ClinicalTrials.gov, or other trial registries in the WHO Registry Network). There are many available templates; for example, APA, the British Psychological Society, and the German Psychological Society partnered with the Leibniz Institute for Psychology and Center for Open Science to create Preregistration Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology (Bosnjak et al., 2022).
Articles must state whether or not any work was preregistered and, if so, where to access the preregistration. Preregistrations must be available to reviewers; authors may submit a masked copy via stable link or supplemental material. Links in the method section should be replaced with an identifiable copy on acceptance.
For example:
Many journals include the following section referring authors to JARS (and some refer to CONSORT et al.):
Authors must adhere to the JARS for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. The standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.
JARS-Qual offers guidance to researchers using qualitative methods such as narrative data, grounded theory, phenomenological, critical, discursive, performative, ethnographic, consensual qualitative, case study, psychobiography, and thematic analysis approaches.
The guidelines focus on transparency in methods reporting, recommending descriptions of how the researcher's own perspective affected the study, as well as the contexts in which the research and analysis took place.
Another option would be: Manuscripts must report (1) how the sample size was determined, (2) all data exclusions, (3) all manipulations, and (4) all study measures. See Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn (2012).for details; include the following statement in the Method section:
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
[Journal] encourages/publishes direct replications [particularly of research published in this journal]. Submissions should include “A Replication of XX Study” in the subtitle of the manuscript as well as in the abstract.
Make sure that the manuscript itself contains no clues to the authors’ identity, including grant numbers, names of institutions providing IRB approval, self-citations, and links to online repositories for data, materials, code, or preregistrations (e.g., Create a View-only Link for a Project).
Articles are eligible for open science badges recognizing publicly available data, materials, and/or preregistered plans and analyses. These badges are awarded on a self-disclosure basis.
At submission, authors must confirm that criteria have been fulfilled in a signed badge disclosure form (PDF, 42KB) that must be submitted as supplemental material. If the editorial team confirms that all criteria have been met, the form will then be published with the article as supplemental material.
For all badges, items must be made available on an open-access repository with a persistent identifier in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent. For the preregistered badge, this is an institutional registration system.
Data and materials must be made available under an open license allowing others to copy, share, and use the data, with attribution and copyright as applicable. Available badges are:
Open Data:
All data necessary to reproduce the reported results that are digitally shareable are made publicly available. Information necessary for replication (e.g., codebooks or metadata) must be included.
Open Data: Protected Access:
A "PA" (Protected Access) notation may be added to open data badges if sensitive, personal data are available only from an approved third-party repository that manages access to data to qualified researchers through a documented process. To be eligible for an open data badge with such a notation, the repository must publicly describe the steps necessary to obtain the data and detailed data documentation (e.g. variable names and allowed values) must be made available publicly. View a list of approved repositories .
Open Materials:
All materials necessary to reproduce the reported results that are digitally shareable, along with descriptions of non-digital materials necessary for replication, are made publicly available.
Preregistered:
At least one study’s design has been preregistered with descriptions of (a) the research design and study materials, including the planned sample size; (b) the motivating research question or hypothesis; (c) the outcome variable(s); and (d) the predictor variables, including controls, covariates, and independent variables. Results must be fully disclosed. As long as they are distinguished from other results in the article, results from analyses that were not preregistered may be reported in the article.
Preregistered+Analysis Plan:
At least one study’s design has been preregistered along with an analysis plan for the research — and results are recorded according to that plan.
Note that it may not be possible to preregister a study or to share data and materials. Applying for open science badges is optional.
For additional information regarding these and other APA policies and support for open science practices, potential authors should visit Open Science Badges. APA journals also have an array of options for authors who want their articles to be available to readers free of charge. These options can be found by visiting open access for APA journals authors.
It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13). In addition, APA Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14). APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, APA expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication. Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with APA ethical standards in the treatment of their sample, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment.
The APA Ethics Office provides the full Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct electronically on its website in HTML, PDF, and Word format. You may also request a copy by emailing or calling the APA Ethics Office (202-336-5930). You may also read "Ethical Principles," December 1992, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp. 1597–1611, amended in 2010 (AP, Vol. 65, p. 493) and 2016 (AP, Vol. 71, p. 900).
AP considers art images for the cover in all media including but not limited to paint, photography, sculpture, mosaic, collage, fabric. Images must be original.
Artists should submit three to six images electronically for consideration to the managing editor. The artist’s name, phone number, email address, and website should be provided, if available. If any of the works are held by museums, galleries, or private individuals other than the artist, indicate that information as well. Provide the title of the artwork for each piece of artwork submitted.
If images are owned by galleries or private individuals, the person submitting must obtain and provide permission from the copyright holder before submission.
The AP art review process is handled initially by the art coeditors. Final selection is made by the AP editor-in-chief. Among factors used in considering artwork are appropriateness of the content and title; bright color; crisp image; visually engaging; and availability of the artist for an interview as the basis for the "On the Cover" essay.
Editorial decisions also take into account the diversity of artists, images, and media. AP seeks to present a wide variety of art and artists to stimulate the eye and mind.
To change the mailing address at which you receive the American Psychologist and other mail from APA, please send information to the subscriptions department or to
American Psychological Association
Subscriptions
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
See APA’s Publishing Policies page for more information on publication policies, including information on author contributorship and responsibilities of authors, author name changes after publication, the use of generative artificial intelligence, funder information and conflict-of-interest disclosures, duplicate publication, data publication and reuse, and preprints.
Visit the Journals Publishing Resource Center for more resources for writing, reviewing, and editing articles for publishing in APA journals.
Editorial BoardHarris Cooper, PhD
Duke University, United States
Belinda Borrelli, PhD
Boston University, United States
Joshua Clegg, PhD
City University of New York, United States
Lillian Comas-Díaz, PhD
Transcultural Mental Health Institute, Washington, DC, United States
Nancy Eisenberg, PhD
Arizona State University, United States
Nancy E. Hill, PhD
Harvard University, United States
Rick Hoyle, PhD
Duke University, United States
Yo Jackson, PhD, ABPP
Pennsylvania State University, United States
Annette La Greca, PhD, ABPP
University of Miami, United States
Kristin Naragon-Gainey, PhD
University of Western Australia, Australia
Michelle G. Newman, PhD
Pennsylvania State University, United States
Philip Zelazo, PhD
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
Hongjian Cao, PhD
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Natalia Zarzeczna, PhD
University of Essex, United Kingdom
Leslie B. Adams, PhD, MPH
Johns Hopkins University, United States
Candice A. Alfano, PhD
University of Houston, United States
Mark S. Aloia, PhD
National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, United States
Jeffrey Arnett, PhD
Clark University, United States
Ximena Arriaga, PhD
Purdue University, United States
Daniel Bagner, PhD
Florida International University, United States
Jacques Barber, PhD
Adelphi University, United States
Annie Bernier, PhD
University of Montreal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Sunil Bhatia, PhD
Connecticut College, United States
Michael Borenstein, PhD
BioSTAT, Addison, Texas, United States
Stephanie Carlson, PhD
University of Minnesota, United States
Jonathan S. Comer, PhD
Florida International University, United States
Pim Cuijpers, PhD
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Christopher Cushing, PhD
University of Kansas, United States
Ron Dahl, PhD
University of California, Berkeley, United States
Junhua Dang, PhD
Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
Joanne Davila, PhD
Stony Brook University, United States
Sarah Depaoli, PhD
University of California, Merced, United States
Alice Eagly, PhD
Northwestern University, United States
Michelle Eakin, PhD
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, United States
Spencer C. Evans, PhD
University of Miami, United States
Erika Felix, PhD
University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
Michelle Fine, PhD
City University of New York, United States
Phil Fisher, PhD
Stanford University, United States
Christoph Flückiger, PhD
University of Kassel, Germany
Miriam K. Forbes, PhD
Macquarie University, Australia
Alexandra M. Freund, PhD
University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Daniel Fulford, PhD
Boston University, United States
Joseph P. Gone, PhD
Harvard University, United States
Oscar I. Gonzalez, PhD
Uniformed Services University
Kathy Grant, PhD
DePaul University, United States
June Gruber, PhD
University of Colorado Boulder
Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, MS, MPH
Rutgers School of Public Health
Peter Hegarty, PhD
The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Janet Helms, PhD
Boston College, United States
Clara E. Hill, PhD
University of Maryland, United States
Mark Hilsenroth, PhD
Adelphi University, United States
Grayson N. Holmbeck, PhD
Loyola University Chicago, United States
Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, PhD
University of Southern California, United States
Nicholas C. Jacobson, PhD
Dartmouth University, United States
Linda Juang, PhD
University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Christopher Kahler, PhD
Brown University, United States
Alan Kazdin, PhD
Yale University, United States
Rex B. Kline, PhD
Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Teresa Davis LaFromboise, PhD
Stanford University, United States
Jennifer Lansford, PhD
Duke University, United States
Spike W. S. Lee, PhD
University of Toronto, Canada
Kathryn Lemery-Chalfant, PhD
University of Arizona, United States
Heidi Levitt, PhD
University of Massachusetts, Boston, United States
Hector I. Lopez-Vergara, PhD
University of Rhode Island, United States
Tina Malti, PhD
University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Ann Masten, PhD
University of Minnesota, United States
Katie McLaughlin, PhD
Harvard University, United States
Elizabeth McQuaid, PhD
Brown University, United States
Alicia E. Meuret, PhD
Southern Methodist University, United States
Rashmita Mistry, PhD
University of California, Los Angeles, United States
Alexandre Morin, PhD
Concordia University, Canada
Arthur M. Nezu, PhD, ABPP
Drexel University, United States
Peter J. Norton, PhD
Cairnmillar Institute, Australia
Lisa M. Oakes, PhD
University of California, Davis, United States
Bunmi O. Olatunji, PhD
Vanderbilt University, United States
Nisha Gottfredson O'Shea, PhD
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States
Jolynn Pek, PhD
The Ohio State University, United States
Armando A. Piña, PhD
Arizona State University, United States
Lisa M. Quintiliani, PhD
Boston University, United States
Sara Rimm-Kaufman, PhD
University of Virginia, United States
Douglas B. Samuel, PhD
Purdue University, United States
Shannon Sauer-Zavala, PhD
University of Kentucky, United States
Wendy Silverman, PhD, ABPP
Yale University, United States
Kathleen Slaney, PhD
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Michael Southam-Gerow, PhD
Virginia Commonwealth University, United States
Gregory Strauss, PhD
University of Georgia, United States
Idia Binitie Thurston, PhD
Northeastern University, United States
Erin Tooley, PhD
Roger Williams University, United States
Pratyusha (Usha) Tummala-Narra, PhD
Boston University, United States
Jeffrey Valentine, PhD
University of Louisville, United States
Paul H. White, PhD
University of Utah, United States
Andrew Winston, PhD
University of Guelph, Canada
Dawn Witherspoon, PhD
The Pennsylvania State University, United States
Laura Wray-Lake, PhD
University of California, Los Angeles, United States
Nur Hani Zainal, PhD
Harvard University, United States
Sigal Zilcha-Mano, PhD
University of Haifa, Israel
Antonio Zuffiano, PhD
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Anne E. Kazak, PhD, ABPP
Nemours Children’s Health Center, Wilmington, Delaware
Walter Heinrichs, PhD
York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Susan J. Harris, PhD
American Psychological Association, United States
Efrem Tuquabo
American Psychological Association, United States
Joshua Clegg (Chair)
Abstracting & IndexingAbstracting and indexing services providing coverage of American Psychologist ®
APA endorses the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines developed by the Center for Open Science (Nosek et al., 2015). The TOP guidelines cover eight fundamental aspects of research planning and reporting that can be followed at three levels of compliance:
Empirical research, including meta-analyses, submitted to American Psychologist must at least meet the “requirement” level for seven of the eight aspects of research planning and reporting. Data transparency must meet the “disclosure” level.
Authors should include a subsection in their methods description titled “Transparency and Openness.” This subsection should detail the efforts the authors have made to comply with the TOP guidelines.
The list below summarizes the minimal TOP requirements of American Psychologist for empirical research, including meta-analyses. Please refer to the manuscript submission instructions for more information.
The science of psychology must be applicable to all people. And the efficacious application of psychological knowledge is dependent on its scientific foundations. To accomplish these ends, psychological science must recognize intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, and cultural influences on an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior. As APA’s flagship journal, American Psychologist is committed to employing policies and procedures that recognize the multiplicity in human experience.
To act on this commitment, the editors of American Psychologist strive to promote equity and inclusivity of people of all intersectional identities and from all backgrounds across the lifespan, especially individuals from groups that have experienced historical and ongoing inequities including people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and individuals with socioeconomic and geographical diversity—through the policies we follow and the content we publish.
Specific actions include (a) inviting editorial board members and manuscript reviewers with a wide range of areas of expertise who are racially and ethnically diverse, gender-diverse, and at different career stages, (b) explicitly recruiting studies by and for communities of color and other underrepresented groups, (c) providing public significance statements at the beginning of published articles, and (d) expanding opportunities for people of color and individuals of historically excluded groups to participate in editorial mentorships through guest editorships, co-reviewing opportunities, and editorial fellowships, and (e) giving particular consideration to manuscript and special issue topics that address and mitigate inequalities in society.
To promote broad representation of diverse populations in the research presented in the journal, manuscripts presenting empirical data are evaluated (a) for completeness of reporting using the requirements for sample descriptions contained in APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards .and, in particular, (b) as part of the peer-review process, using an explicit criterion that is an assessment of the appropriateness of the sample for drawing inferences about diverse populations.
Equity, diversity, and inclusion are issues of social justice. They also influence our trust in science. A true science of psychology can progress in no other way.
Definitions and further details on inclusive study designs are available on the Journals EDI homepage.
More information on this journal’s reporting standards is listed under the submission guidelines tab.
Editorial fellowships help early-career psychologists gain firsthand experience in scholarly publishing and editorial leadership roles. This journal offers an editorial fellowship program for early-career psychologists from historically excluded communities.
This journal encourages reviewers to submit co-reviews with their students and trainees. The journal likewise offers a formal reviewer mentorship program where graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from historically excluded groups are matched with a senior reviewer to produce an integrated review.
American Psychologist ensures that guest editors for special issues are mentored by an associate editor.
This journal offers masked peer review (where both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not known to the other). Research has shown that masked peer review can help reduce implicit bias against traditionally female names or early-career scientists with smaller publication records (Budden et al., 2008; Darling, 2015).
Author and Editor Spotlights