“Please describe your proposal, why you want to start the blog now, and what qualifies you (or the proposed author) to write it.”
That sentence, from Psychology Today’s own writer’s guidelines, is the whole application. Three questions. What, why now, and why you. Most people who want to know how to write for Psychology Today read past it on the way to the submit button, then send a long bio, a list of topics, and a link to their practice website. Then they wait, and nothing happens.
This guide on how to write for Psychology Today is about taking that sentence seriously. It covers what the site publishes, who gets accepted, how to write a proposal that answers all three questions in the first few lines, and the rules that catch new bloggers after they are in.
What Psychology Today publishes
Psychology Today is published by Sussex Publishers, which describes it as the largest media enterprise devoted to the coverage of human behavior and mental health. It has two editorial products, and they work differently.
The first is the blog network. The guidelines say most articles on psychologytoday.com are written by its network of expert authors, and that “each author typically publishes regular blog posts focused on a particular theme or set of topics.” The word regular matters. You are not applying to publish an article. You are applying to run a column.
The second is the print magazine. It runs reported features, and the guidelines say it values “originality, insight, and good reporting.” The magazine does not consider poetry or fiction. It also points clinicians and researchers who want to publish regularly toward the blog first, noting that many magazine contributors begin as bloggers.
There is a third thing people confuse with both: the therapist directory. That is a paid listing service run by a separate company, Sussex Directories. A directory profile helps clients find you. It does not give you a byline, and it does not count toward a blog application. If a colleague told you they “write for Psychology Today” and they mean their directory profile, that is not the route you want.
Who gets accepted
The editorial process page is plain about the bar: “We accept submissions from individuals with domain expertise, including clinicians, scientists, mental health professionals, and writers. If mastery is demonstrated and content standards are met, a Psychology Today editor will contact the applicant.”
Two phrases do the work there. Domain expertise means you have standing in a specific area, not psychology in general. Mastery is demonstrated means the proposal and samples have to show it. Your credentials open the door, but your writing has to walk through it.
The site’s terms of use widen the circle a little. They say Sussex Publishers encourages bloggers “who possess the necessary qualifications to practice in their fields, or have significant academic, professional, journalistic or relevant lived experience,” and welcomes authors with published works in psychology, health, and wellness. That is why you will find journalists, authors, coaches with a research background, and people writing from lived experience alongside licensed psychologists and professors.
What separates accepted applicants in practice is not the credential list. It is fit between credential and theme. A licensed marriage and family therapist proposing a blog on couples and money has an obvious claim. The same therapist proposing a blog on workplace productivity has a weaker one, even with the same license. Editors are checking whether the person and the topic belong together.
Writing the proposal: the 3-Line Proposal
We coach clients through this with a framework we call the 3-Line Proposal. It maps one line to each question in Psychology Today’s own sentence, and it goes at the very top of your submission, before any bio.
Line one is the Lens. One sentence that names the blog’s theme and the reader it serves. Not “a blog about anxiety,” but “a blog for high-functioning professionals whose anxiety shows up as overwork, drawing on a decade of treating burnout in a hospital system.” A lens is specific enough that an editor can picture the next ten posts.
Line two is the Timing. One sentence on why now. This is the question applicants skip most often, and the guidelines ask it directly. Good answers point to something outside you: new research in your area, a shift in how people talk about the problem, a gap in the network’s current coverage, or a book you have coming out. “I have always wanted to write” is not a timing answer.
Line three is the Standing. One sentence on why you. Lead with the credential or experience that ties you to the lens, not your full CV. “I am a licensed psychologist who has run a burnout clinic for 11 years and published two studies on physician overwork” beats a paragraph listing every degree.
After those three lines, add a short list of six to eight working post titles written as headlines. This is the fastest way to show you can produce on a schedule and that your ideas are pitched at general readers. Then attach or link one to three samples, which is the range the guidelines ask for. Pick pieces written for the public, such as an op-ed, a newsletter essay, or a magazine piece. A peer-reviewed paper shows expertise, but it does not show you can hold a lay reader for 1,000 words.
Keep the whole submission short. If your proposal runs past a page, you have not found your lens yet.
Submit through psychologytoday.submittable.com and choose the blog proposal form. Magazine pitches use a separate form with their own instructions: explain what you would write, mention sources you might contact, suggest a section if you have one in mind, and say why now and why you.
After you are in: the rules that trip people up
Acceptance is the start of a working relationship with an editor, and the site holds contributors to a range of guidelines. A few deserve attention before your first post.
Every article is certified. The editorial process page says that before each submission for review, authors must certify they have read the editorial guidelines and that the piece aligns with all of them, including the rules on generative AI. AI tools are permitted for research and brainstorming. Treat that as the boundary and write the post yourself.
No implied endorsement. The terms say you may not imply that your content is sponsored or endorsed by Sussex Publishers or Psychology Today. That rules out language on your practice site such as “as endorsed by Psychology Today.” “I write the Burnout Clinic blog for Psychology Today” is fine. Anything that suggests the publication vouches for your services is not.
Self-promotion has limits. Your bio and author page can point to your work. Your posts should not read like a sales page for your practice, course, or book. Editors tend to cut product mentions that do not serve the reader, and repeated promotion is a quick way to lose an editor’s goodwill.
Stay in your lane. The lens you were accepted on is the lens your editor expects. If you want to branch out, raise it with your editor first rather than publishing off-theme and hoping nobody notices.
Use the community. Psychology Today runs an internal forum where contributors seek peer input and ask questions. New bloggers who use it tend to learn the house style faster.
One practical note on payment: the guidelines say nothing about fees for the blog network, and it is not pitched as paid freelance work. If income from the writing matters to you, ask before you commit to a schedule. Most bloggers treat the column as an authority asset rather than a revenue line, and it is a strong one. A Psychology Today author page with a steady archive is the kind of third-party source that journalists, podcast bookers, and AI answer engines treat as a credibility signal when they decide who to quote.
What a strong first month looks like
Once an editor approves your blog, the first few posts set the tone for the relationship. Treat them as an extension of your proposal.
Publish the post you promised first. Your working titles were part of the reason you were accepted, so start with the strongest one. An editor who sees you deliver exactly what you pitched learns to trust your judgment on the next idea.
Write for the curious lay reader the submission page describes. Psychology Today’s audience includes psychologists and mental health professionals, but also what the Submittable page calls “curious and intelligent lay readers.” Define terms, cite the research you rely on, and give readers something they can use or think about by the last paragraph.
Set a rhythm you can keep. The guidelines describe bloggers who publish regular posts on a theme, and a steady cadence matters more than a burst of enthusiasm followed by silence. Two strong posts a month for a year build a far more useful archive than eight posts in the first month and none after.
Link your work together. Each new post is a chance to point readers to an earlier one on a related question, which keeps them on your author page and shows editors the column has depth.
That is the quiet part of how to write for Psychology Today that applicants rarely think about: acceptance is a bet the editor makes on your consistency, and the first month is where you start paying it back.
The magazine route, and when to take it
If you are a reporter or a writer who wants to publish a single feature rather than run a column, the magazine is the right door. The guidelines call for “good, clearly articulated story ideas” and writers with the talent to bring them to life. Nearly any subject related to psychology is fair game, and originality and reporting carry the most weight.
A magazine pitch should read like a short story memo. Open with the idea in two sentences. Name the people or research you would report on. Explain what readers will understand at the end that they do not understand now. Then answer the same two questions the blog form asks: why now, and why you. If you have already published on the topic elsewhere, link it.
For clinicians and researchers, the guidelines are clear that the blog usually comes first. A year of strong posts gives an editor a reason to trust you with a feature, and it gives you a body of work to point to when you pitch one.
Whichever route you choose, the work is the same, and it starts with three sentences that tell an editor exactly what you will write, why it matters now, and why you are the person to write it.