APS Publication Policy

The American Psychosomatic Society relies upon its diverse and engaged membership to sustain its reputation for advancing the scientific understanding and multidisciplinary integration of biological, psychological, behavioral, and social factors in human health and disease. APS is dedicated to disseminating this understanding through educational activities and publications.

This document is intended to provide guidance regarding APS’s policy on the publication of papers arising through the activities of and on behalf of an APS working group, task force, committee, or special interest group (SIG). In these circumstances, it is appropriate to acknowledge APS’s role in the process of creating a publication, and for situations where APS’s endorsement is sought.

This policy extends to but is not limited to, papers that may serve as a review of the literature, best practices, or state-of-the-science, a strategic plan for future research in psychosomatic science and medicine, a response to a specific health policy or practice, or serve as an official policy of APS.

Several principles should underlie these publications:

  1. The content is relevant and consistent with APS’s mission.
  2. The authorship process has been inclusive at both the planning, writing, and review stages to incorporate the perspectives and experiences of APS members.
  3. Any conflict of interest in the content or the authorship is fully disclosed.

Recommended Steps:

  1. Concept Proposal and Review: Before beginning a paper on behalf of APS (SIG, committee, working group, or task force), an abstract/concept should be submitted to the APS Council via the Executive Director. Groups requesting the endorsement of APS will have their paper reviewed by Council and if approved, agree to consider comments from the APS membership collected during an open comment period. The proposal should include the paper’s objectives and relevance to the APS mission and scope/charge/mandate of the SIG, committee, working group, or task force. The proposal should specify the proposed methods, analyses, and expected outcomes; target journal/publication outlet with alternatives; authorship structure and means for reflecting diversity, equity, and inclusion of authors, and project timeline. The Council will approve the concept proposal or not and provide feedback within one month.
  2. Writing the paper: For papers initiated by APS SIGs and committees, all members of the group should be invited to participate in the writing process. For a paper initiated by a working group or task force, this might include an open invitation to the entire APS membership or a relevant SIG to be involved in the writing process. Members should be given at least two weeks to indicate an interest in participation. It is acceptable to limit the number of individuals in a writing group for pragmatic reasons, but deliberate and intentional actions should be taken to form a diverse writing group.
  3. Publication Review: After the manuscript has been approved by the writing committee and sponsoring group (e.g., SIG or committee), the corresponding author should submit the final draft manuscript to the APS Council via the Executive Director, and indicate whether review/approval from the Council (Part a below) or APS Membership (Part b below) is sought.
    1. Review/Approval by Council (Disclaimer that the paper does not reflect the views of the entire APS membership): For all papers published on behalf of APS, the Council will have an opportunity to review the paper and have editorial authority over the paper. The Council will respond to the first author on the paper within 4 weeks of submission. Approval by at least 2/3 of the Council is required. If the Council does not approve the paper, the author(s) may
      1. revise the paper accordingly, or
      2. withdraw APS’s association with the paper before journal submission, unless APS has provided financial support to the writing group, in which case the APS Council’s decision regarding the future of the paper is final.
    2. Review/Approval by APS Membership: For papers requiring review by the entire membership, the manuscript will be posted on the APS website, and the full membership will be invited to comment on the paper. Members will be given a month to post comments. The comments from APS members and the response by the writing committee will be reviewed by three members of the APS Council (and a designated editor from Psychosomatic Medicine if that is the target journal) to confirm that appropriate suggestions have been incorporated or dissenting opinions are acknowledged. The Council will make final approval of the manuscript per section 3a above.

 

  1. Conflict of Interest by reviewers: Council members involved as authors on the paper must recuse themselves from commenting or voting on the matter. If this reduces that voting group to less than a quorum, the voting body will be supplemented from the list of Past Presidents, beginning with the most recent.

 

Authorship:

Alternate forms of authorship might be considered. The preferred format, especially for policy statements and reports from large committees, would first list the named APS working group, committee or SIG followed by members of the writing committee, as in: “APS Affect Science in Medicine Special Interest Group, John Doe (chair), Jane Smith, …”. In the alternative format, the authors of the writing group are followed by the named APS working group, committee or SIG, for example, “Jane Doe and Richard Roe on behalf of the APS LGBTQ+ Special Interest Group.” The alternative format should include justification of why the preferred format is infeasible (e.g. journal policy) or why the alternative is more appropriate. Included in the considerations of the two alternatives should be issues of conflict of interest, specifically recognizing that authorship is a benefit. Authorship plans should be documented in advance using the usual standards that recognize the level of involvement. An appendix may list all group members.

Acknowledgement/Disclaimer:

Any paper written on “behalf of APS” must be reviewed and approved by the APS Council.

If the APS Council approves the manuscript but the APS membership does not review and comment on the manuscript, then the authors should acknowledge: “This paper was approved as an American Psychosomatic Society (APS) publication by the APS Council.”

If the APS Council approves the manuscript and the APS membership is also given the opportunity to review and comment on the manuscript, the authors should acknowledge: “This paper was reviewed by the membership of the American Psychosomatic Society (APS) and is endorsed by the APS Council.”

 

Note: Disclaimer language can be modified by the Council at their discretion.

 

Approved by APS Council September 18, 2020