Psychology Today is the largest media enterprise devoted to the coverage of human behavior and mental health. We are proud to be a trusted source for clinical and scientific information around the world; we hold this content, and its authors, to the highest standards.

All expert author content is reviewed, edited and fact-checked for accuracy, objectivity and to ascertain that the author has relevant domain expertise. Reference material is written and edited by staff editors. Reference material such as the Clinical Terms is reviewed by credentialed psychologists (Ph.D.s) or graduate students pursuing doctoral work in the clinical domain.

Online articles that discuss scientific, medical or clinical matters are vetted for clarity as well as accuracy. You will see key ideas and information highlighted at the top. We strive to make translational scientific information easily digestible; we know that our content informs important health and wellness decisions made by readers. Expert authors and staff editors weigh the real-world needs and outcomes of readers when writing about psychological and medical information.

In some instances, it is important to make clear that there exists scientific consensus on a topic. In other instances, it is important to demonstrate competing ideas and emergent information. We flag these topics where relevant.

Each article, whether written by a neuroscientist or an individual with everyday expertise (such as chronicling daily life with a mental health challenge), is read, vetted, and edited by one or more members of our in-house editorial team. The online article is reviewed and edited, indicating that it has passed fact-check standards and is fully accurate, objective, and well-reasoned.

The first reviewing editor is named on the piece, denoted by a “reviewed” badge. The piece will be read by multiple editors over a longer time horizon, often with an eye towards confirming that scientific and clinical information remains up to date. In the interests of clarity and continuity, the name of the first editor to review the post is published, even after the piece undergoes multiple reviews.

References are provided in the body of the text or appended as footnotes.

Contributors are not permitted to use generative-AI to author their text in whole or in part, nor are they permitted to alter the tone and voice of their copy using AI-generated edits or suggestions.  Prior to the submission of each article for review, authors must certify that they have read our editorial guidelines and that the piece aligns with all guidelines including the use of generative AI.

 Tools including AI are permitted for research and brainstorming. 

Content Labeling

We invite domain experts to contribute to the site and the magazine both to deliver information objectively and in some cases to offer their own takeaways. If an author primarily offers an opinion, we label the piece as such.  

We also solicit work from authors with lived experience, including, crucially, in the realm of mental illness. These pieces reflect hard-won experience, and are often written in the first person. Because they do not necessarily reflect formal knowledge of a domain, they are labeled “Personal Perspectives.” Personal Perspectives are first-person articles on everyday expertise in topic areas such as anxiety, depression, OCD, and numerous others.

News content is drawn from primary sources and fact-checked for accuracy and objectivity before it is published in the Newsfeed. In some cases, contributing authors will both report the facts and offer a take that draws on their own domain knowledge. In this instance, an opinion piece is considered newsworthy.