For editors

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. A manuscript outside the journal’s subject matter is returned at this stage rather than after a review, so the authors can submit elsewhere without losing weeks.

• Scope. Does the manuscript make a substantive contribution to behavior therapy or mental health, appropriate to its research question and design? A mental health topic alone is not a contribution to it
• Article type. Is it one the journal accepts, and is it structured as that type requires
• Completeness. Ethics documentation, consent, trial registration where applicable, data-availability statement, funding, competing interests, author contributions, AI disclosure
• Reporting. Is the checklist for the design attached, and does the methods section describe something a reader could evaluate
• Similarity. Read the report in context. There is no percentage at which a manuscript is automatically rejected
• Claims. Does the abstract already state a conclusion the design cannot support

Where scope is arguable, the journal would rather review than return. The screening question is whether a reader of this journal would be served by the work, not whether it is the archetype of what the journal publishes.

• Recuse from any manuscript you authored, co-authored or contributed to
• Recuse where an author is a current or recent collaborator, a colleague at your institution, or someone you have supervised or been supervised by
• Recuse where a financial or personal interest could reasonably be perceived to affect the decision, whether or not it would
• Declare rather than judge: where you are unsure, tell the editorial office and let it decide
• A recused manuscript is reassigned to an editor with no involvement, and the recusal is recorded

Editor-authored submissions are handled independently, by an editor with no reporting relationship to the author, and the handling is recorded with the article.

Select for methodological as well as topical fit. A treatment trial and a psychometric validation are not assessed against the same criteria, and a reviewer who knows the disorder but not the design will miss what matters.

• Aim for reviewers who between them cover the subject, the design and, where relevant, the statistics
• Check each reviewer for conflicts before inviting, and ask them to decline if one exists
• Do not invite reviewers suggested by the authors without independent checking, and never rely on suggested reviewers alone
• Give reviewers the journal’s criteria and, where the study involves risk or vulnerable participants, ask them to comment specifically on the safeguards
• Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.

Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. The decision is yours, on the evidence in the manuscript and the reviews; reviewers advise, they do not vote.

• Where reviewers disagree, read the manuscript again rather than counting recommendations
• Where a review is thin, unsupported or hostile, do not pass it to the author unedited — seek another opinion
• Say what would make the manuscript acceptable, specifically enough to act on
• Where the decision is rejection, say why in a way the author can use elsewhere
• Do not require citations to this journal, to your own work, or to any particular source, as a condition of acceptance

Behavioral and psychological intervention studies

Is the intervention described well enough to be repeated? Is the comparator described as fully as the intervention — a waitlist and an active control answer different questions. Was fidelity monitored, and what did it show? Are outcomes measured with validated instruments by assessors who were blind where blinding was possible? Are harms, deterioration and differential dropout reported?

Trials

Was the trial registered before enrollment, and do the registered outcomes match the reported ones? Are deviations declared? Is participant flow complete? Is the primary outcome identified as registered, rather than chosen after the results?

Observational work

The most common failure in this field is an association reported in causal language. Check the abstract and the discussion specifically. Are confounders named and justified, is missing data described, and is generalizability claimed beyond the sample studied?

Psychometric work

Is the construct defined, is the sample adequate for the analysis, is reliability reported with precision, and does the manuscript say the intended research or clinical interpretation of the score?

Digital and computational work

Is the psychological or behavioral contribution substantive, or is a mental health dataset serving as a benchmark? Is predictive performance evaluated with leakage-resistant resampling or held-out data appropriate to the claim? Are transportability claims supported by external validation? Are subgroup performance and uncertainty reported where the data permit reliable assessment? Are data provenance, consent basis and privacy arrangements stated?

Research involving risk

Where participants were screened for risk or distress, are risk-management and referral arrangements reported? Does reporting on self-harm and suicide follow accepted conventions? Is identifying detail reduced to what the question requires?

Concerns about originality, data, images, authorship or undisclosed interests go to the editorial office rather than being settled between editor and author. The office corresponds with the authors and, where appropriate, their institution.

• Do not accuse in a decision letter. Describe what you observed and pass it on
• Do not delay a decision indefinitely while a concern is investigated — tell the office so the authors can be informed
• After publication, a substantiated problem is addressed with a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction, as a citable notice linked to the article
• An appeal against your decision is considered by an editor who was not responsible for it

• A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the review process or use its content before publication
• After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
• Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same applies to editorial assessment: confidential manuscript content is not uploaded to a service where confidentiality cannot be assured
• Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, memberships and institutional relationships
• Where you are asked, from any direction, to reach a particular outcome, tell the editorial office