These are comprehensive, scholarly articles that bring together existing knowledge on a clinical topic important to practicing general psychiatrists. A key (but not exclusive) objective is to review developments from the past 4 years and discuss how they integrate into the existing body of knowledge. Review articles, which are usually about 5,000 words, are usually solicited by the Editors, but unsolicited material will be considered. The following sections are suggested: Abstract (up to 250 words, non-structured), Definition, Epidemiology and Natural History, Biopsychosocial Underpinnings, Assessment and Differential Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes, Future Directions. Authors should also submit three multiple choice CME questions based on the content of the article.

The intention of this clinical synthesis section is to merge expert opinion with evidence-based review of current clinical practice, including diagnosis, treatment, and new developments. Articles, which are usually about 3,500 words, should be based on topics that fall within the ABPN recertification exam topic outline, which covers general psychiatry practice, and include an abstract (non-structured) of 150 words. Articles can include the following sections: Clinical Context, Treatment Strategies and Evidence, Questions and Controversy, and Recommendations. Authors should also submit three multiple choice CME questions based on the content of the article.

Psychiatry and medicine are evolving rapidly. Keeping current with all of these changes can be challenging. There are not only advances in treatment and medical knowledge but also changes in regulatory requirements, systems of care, and models of care. The goal of this feature is to provide brief updates that help the busy practitioner know where to go and what to do to stay current and compliant in this ever-changing time. We are particularly interested in submissions describing the applications of emerging technology to diagnosis, treatment, and health economics. Submissions are limited to 2,400 words and 15 references.

This feature is designed to present evidence to fill the gap between results derived from regulatory trials and treatment management as it occurs in the clinic. In pursuit of this goal, the section will publish the following types of articles:

• Small clinical trials reporting unique interventions in patient samples.
• Case series of challenging clinical scenarios that suggest a novel or effective application of psychopharmacology or somatic therapies.
• Electronic medical record evaluations of medication combinations or the effects of psychotropics on patients with complex medical status.
• Clinical applications of a biomedical testing procedure that assists in the selection or use of therapies.
• Highly compelling and convincing individual case reports (involving dechallenge and rechallenge testing) of benefits or unusual harms from an intervention.
• Commentaries offering an original perspective on an aspect of clinical psychopharmacology.

Submissions are limited to 3,000 words of main text, with no more than five displayed items (tables, figures), and should include an abstract of 150–200 words.

A clinical question is posed to which an expert in that area responds.

Sound ethical decision making is essential to astute and compassionate clinical care. This column provides ethics commentary on topics in clinical psychiatry and through case examples offers clinical ethics questions and expert answers to sharpen decision-making skills and advance astute and compassionate clinical care in the field.

Caring for patients with psychiatric disorders requires careful listening, active engagement, and skillful communication. Yet, psychiatric practice raises a number of potential barriers to effective patient-centered communication. Meeting each individual patient’s needs requires expertise in effective communication skills in the evaluation and treatment of individuals with the full array of psychiatric and substance use disorders, and from disparate cultures, lifestyles, religions, and value systems. The Communication Commentary is designed to highlight potential communication dilemmas faced in the field and provide information and best practice, and, when available, evidence-based discussion to enhance lifelong learning of this essential skill.

Word count. The number of words in the manuscript (including abstract, text, references, tables, and figures) and the number of tables and figures should be noted in the upper right-hand corner of the title page. (To determine word equivalence for tables and figures, see Tables and Figures.)

Title. The title should be informative and within 120 characters, including spaces and punctuation.

Byline. Authors’ full first names (i.e., no initials) should be included with up to two academic degrees after each author’s name. Please also include departmental and institutional affiliations for all authors.

Previous presentation. If the paper has been presented at a meeting, give the name of the meeting, the location, and the inclusive dates.

As outlined in Disclosure of Competing Interests and Financial Support, all financial relationships with commercial interests for all authors must be disclosed, whether or not directly related to the subject of their paper. Such reporting must include all equity ownership, profit-sharing agreements, royalties, patents, and research or other grants from private industry or closely affiliated nonprofit funds. For income from pharmaceutical companies, the purpose must be specified, e.g., speakers bureau honoraria or other CME activity, travel funds, advisory panel payments, research grants. If an author has no interests to disclose, this must be explicitly stated and will be acknowledged in print as “Dr. X reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.”

Grant support should include the full name of the granting agency and grant number.

Abstracts are sent to various archive and indexing services and aid in an article’s discoverability by providing more detailed information than would a simple listing of just title/author(s)/journal of publication. Abstracts of clinical review submissions should be unstructured and approximately 150 words. Abstracts of submissions containing original research should be structured and no more than 250 words with the following information, under the headings indicated: Objective—the primary purpose of the article; Method—data sources, subjects, design, measurements, data analysis; Results—key findings; and Conclusions—implications, future directions.

Use the active voice and third person; headings and subheadings should be inserted at reasonable intervals. Footnotes to text may not be used.

Abbreviations. Spell out all abbreviations (other than those for units of measure) the first time they are used. Idiosyncratic abbreviations should not be used.

Drugs. Generic rather than trade names of drugs should be used.

References. References are numbered and listed by their order of appearance in text; the text citation is followed by the appropriate reference number in parentheses. Do not arrange the list alphabetically. References in tables and figures are numbered as though the tables and figures were part of the text.

Accuracy of citation is the author’s responsibility. References should conform exactly to the original spelling, accents, punctuation, etc. Authors should be sure that all references listed have been cited in text.

Type references in the style shown below. List the surnames and initials of the first three authors, followed by “et al:” Abbreviations of journal names should conform to the style used in the “NLM Catalog: Journals referenced in the NCBI Databases” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals); journals not indexed there should not be abbreviated.

Journal article
• Mahon K, Russo M, Perez-Rodriguez M, et al: The neurobiology of bipolar disorder: neuroimaging and genetics update. Focus 2015; 13:3–11.
Book chapter
• Beahrs JO: The cultural impact of psychiatry: the question of regressive effects, in American Psychiatry After World War II: 1944–1994. Edited by Menninger RW, Nemiah JC. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2000, pp 321–342
Report
• Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, Md, Department of Health and Human Services, President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003

Authors are encouraged to incorporate tables and figures within their articles.

Tables should be double-spaced, no wider than 120 characters wide (including spaces), and no longer than 70 lines. Values expressed in the same unit of measurement should read down, not across; when percentages are presented, the appropriate numbers must also be given.

Figures should represent data visually (depicting trends or patterns, for example) rather than numerically. Focus encourages the submission of high-quality original, noncolor figures (previously published figures are discouraged).

To facilitate peer review, upload any figures separately from the Main Document file containing the text and tables. Each figure file should be submitted as a black-and-white (noncolor), editable .tiff (text image file format) or .eps (encapsulated Postscript) file or the original Excel or PowerPoint file for each figure. If figures have been previously adapted from an earlier publication, the author must secure written permission from the copyright holder for use in Focus. The author must submit a copy of the permission release and credit lines if the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Format

• Definitions of symbols appearing in the figure should be presented in a key within the figure, rather than in the title or footnotes
• Except for the key, avoid using internal type (e.g., placing statistical values within a graph)
• Two-dimensional graphs should not be represented in three dimensions

Content

Each complete figure (including caption and any explanatory footnotes) should be understandable without reference to the text. Only the most widely recognized abbreviations may be used in the figure image, caption, and any explanatory footnotes.

Individuals interested in reviewing for Focus should visit ScholarOne Manuscripts and create an account.

Abstracts of articles within a reviewer’s given area of expertise are sent via e-mail to the reviewer. Within 3 days, the reviewer is asked to indicate willingness to review and availability to perform the review within a 2-week time frame.

Most competing interests, financial or otherwise, do not disqualify one from participating in the peer-review process, but Focus requests that you indicate any conflict that you may have in reviewing any particular manuscript. You can also notify Focus if you feel that you cannot review a manuscript because of a competing interest. This will not affect your reviewer status in any way.

Manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust Focus with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details of the review of their manuscript. Reviewers should never copy, share, or discuss a manuscript under review or the data within with anyone without expressed written permission of Focus’s Editor and the authors.

Written permission to reuse material published in the journals of the American Psychiatric Association must be secured from American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Please complete and submit your permission request form via the web.

Permission to reprint can also be secured through the Copyright Clearance Center:

Copyright Clearance Center
222 Rosewood Drive
Danvers, MA 01923
USA

Telephone: 1-978-750-8400
Fax: 1-978-646-8600
E-mail: [email protected]
www.copyright.com

There is usually a charge for such permission, except for nonprofit classroom or library reserve use by instructors and educational institutions or for authors who wish to reprint their own material.