Instructions for authors

• Research article
• Review, including systematic review and meta-analysis
• Short communication or brief report
• Methodology article
• Case report
• Letter to the editor
• Editorial discussion or commentary

Word limits are guidance rather than hard ceilings: a method described in enough detail to be repeated is worth more than a manuscript trimmed to a target. Where length is a problem for a specific submission, ask the editorial office before cutting the methods.

Title

Descriptive rather than promotional. It should say what was studied, in whom, and with what design, and should not state a conclusion the design cannot support.

Abstract

Structured for empirical work: background, methods, results, conclusions. Report the actual numbers, including the comparator, not only the direction of an effect.

Keywords

Five to eight, using terminology appropriate to the research question.

Introduction

What is known, what is not, and the specific question. Not a review of the field.

Methods

Enough detail for the study to be repeated: design, setting, participants and how they were identified, the intervention or exposure, comparators, outcomes and how they were measured, sample size, and the analysis plan.

Results

Participant flow, the numbers analyzed, and results with effect sizes and precision. Report all pre-specified outcomes, including those that did not favor the hypothesis.

Discussion

Interpretation against the design, comparison with existing work, and limitations that are specific to this study rather than generic.

References

The house rule is the first three authors followed by et al. Cite primary sources; do not pad the list.

Figures and tables

Each must stand alone with its caption. Tables as editable text, never as images.

Submit the completed checklist with the manuscript. Where no guidance fits the design, say so in the methods and describe what was done to make the study evaluable.

An intervention that cannot be described cannot be replicated, adapted or implemented. This is the most common reason a manuscript in this field is sent back.

• What was delivered: the techniques or components, in enough detail to be repeated, and the manual or protocol where one exists
• By whom: the providers, their discipline, training and supervision arrangements
• To whom: eligibility, how participants were identified, and the clinical characteristics that matter to the result
• How much: number, length and spacing of sessions, and the dose actually received rather than only the dose intended
• In what format: individual, group, guided self-help, remote or blended, and in what setting
• Against what: the comparator described as fully as the intervention. A waitlist and an active control answer different questions
• Fidelity and adherence: how delivery was monitored and what it showed
• Outcomes: the instruments, who completed them, when, and what a change on them means clinically
• Follow-up: the schedule, retention at each point, and how missing data was handled
• Harms: adverse events, deterioration and dropout attributed to the intervention, reported whether or not any occurred

Registration

Interventional clinical trials must be registered in an accepted public trial registry at or before the first participant provides consent for enrollment. The registry name, registration number, and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.

Protocol deviations

Any change to the registered outcomes, analysis or sample size is reported, with the date and the reason.

Participant flow

A CONSORT flow diagram from screening to analysis.

Primary and secondary outcomes

Identified as registered. A secondary outcome presented as though it were primary is a reporting error.

Analysis

The population analyzed, how missing data was handled, and whether the analysis was pre-specified or exploratory.

Safety

Monitoring arrangements, and adverse events by group.

Observational work is welcome and is held to what it can show. An association is reported as an association; language implying that an exposure produced an outcome is reserved for designs that can support it.

• Sampling frame, recruitment and response, with the denominators
• Measurement: validated instruments where they exist, with their properties in this sample
• Confounding: which variables were adjusted for, why those, and what remains unmeasured
• Missing data: how much, in what pattern, and how it was handled
• Effect sizes with precision, not p values alone
• Generalizability stated against the sample actually studied

• The construct, and why an existing instrument was insufficient
• Item development, and any expert or participant input to it
• Sample size and composition, justified against the analysis
• Reliability, reported with confidence intervals
• Validity evidence: structural, convergent, discriminant and, where relevant, criterion
• Measurement invariance where the instrument is to be compared across groups
• Scoring and interpretation in relation to the intended research or clinical use, with uncertainty and limitations
• The construct and intended score interpretation for research, assessment, or clinical use

A digitally delivered intervention is described as fully as a face-to-face one: content, human support, expected usage, and engagement actually observed. Attrition is reported as a finding rather than a nuisance.

• Platform, version, and any change to it during the study
• Human support: who, how much, and what they did
• Engagement and usage data, and how they relate to outcome
• Privacy, consent and data security arrangements for the data collected
• For a model or algorithm: data provenance, how it was trained and validated, and leakage-resistant resampling or held-out evaluation appropriate to the prediction claim; external validation for claims of transportability
• Subgroup performance and uncertainty reported where data permit reliable assessment; limitations explained otherwise
• Any AI-assisted component disclosed, with its role in the intervention or the analysis

• Ethical approval, with the approving body and reference
• Informed consent, and consent to publish where participants are identifiable
• Trial registration where applicable
• Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
• Funding, with grant numbers, or a statement that there was none
• Competing interests for every author, financial and non-financial
• Author contributions
• Any use of generative AI in preparing the manuscript, with tool and purpose

Prepare an editable Microsoft Word manuscript (DOC or DOCX), using 12-point Times New Roman or Arial, double spacing, one-inch margins, numbered pages, and continuous line numbers. The simple submission form also accepts PDF and ZIP files for initial uploads; provide editable text for production.

Use a descriptive title of up to 20 words. The general structured abstract limit is 300 words; Short Communications use an abstract of up to 200 words. Provide five to eight keywords. For empirical work, identify the background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.

These descriptions guide preparation; select a supported category in the submission system. Include the references, figures, and tables needed to evaluate the work, and place supporting detail in clearly referenced supplementary files where appropriate.

Figures, tables, and supplementary files

• Submit figures separately as TIFF, PNG, or JPEG at a minimum resolution of 300 DPI. Include a descriptive legend and explain symbols and abbreviations.
• Create editable tables using the Word table function. Number figures and tables in citation order and provide informative titles or legends.
• Identify each supplementary file in the manuscript, with a title, content description, and version where relevant. Use a ZIP container when required by the uploader.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where required and supply the permission or applicable license information.

Number references in order of first citation. List the first three authors followed by et al. when there are more than three. Include the title, source, year, volume/issue and page range or article identifier where applicable, plus a DOI or stable URL. Identify datasets, preprints, and trial registrations as such.

1. Journal article: Ma S, Jia N, Dai J. Core and activating Symptoms of Depression in Chinese Teachers and Comparison between Different Gender and Stage of Teaching: A Network Analysis Approach. Journal of Behavior Therapy And Mental Health. 2026;2(3):4–26. doi:10.14302/issn.2474-9273.jbtm-25-5885.
2. Book-length report: World Health Organization. World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. World Health Organization; 2022. ISBN 9789240049338. Publisher record.
3. Webpage: World Health Organization. Mental health. October 8, 2025. Accessed September 12, 2026. WHO webpage.
4. Dataset: Bilder R, Poldrack R, Cannon T, et al. UCLA Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics LA5c Study [dataset]. OpenNeuro; version 1.0.0. doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds000030.v1.0.0.
5. Preprint: Bathina KC, ten Thij M, Lorenzo-Luaces L, et al. Depressed individuals express more distorted thinking on social media [preprint]. arXiv; 2020. arXiv:2002.02800v1. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2002.02800.
6. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Computer-assisted Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Depression in Primary Care [trial registration]. NCT02700009. Accessed September 12, 2026. Registry record.

Cite the version actually used. A preprint or trial registration should not be represented as a peer-reviewed results paper.

• The work makes a substantive contribution to behavior therapy or mental health, and the manuscript states that contribution.
• The intervention or instrument is described in enough detail to be repeated
• Every pre-specified outcome is reported, including unfavorable ones
• Effect sizes are reported with precision
• Conclusions stop where the design stops
• Limitations are specific to this study
• The reporting checklist for the design is completed and attached
• All declarations above are present
• Figures are separate files at publication resolution; tables are editable text
• References follow the first three authors then et al. rule
• For double-blind review, remove author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details, institution names, and other identifying information from the reviewer manuscript. Provide identifying information separately in the title-page file or submission form.

Then go to Submit Paper. Authors must use only one submission route for the same manuscript.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.

Primary route · ManuscriptZone

The journal's submission system. oap.manuscriptzone.net

Alternative route · Manuscript submission form

A form that records the manuscript and its files. openaccesspub.org/manuscript-submission-form

Assisted route · Editorial office

Authors who need assistance may write to the editorial office. [email protected]