Submissions

Author Guidelines

Acta Psychedelica welcomes original Research Articles, Book Reviews and Essays and Commentaries on psychedelic substances and experiences from all scientific disciplines and perspectives in English, Finnish, and Swedish. The journal is fully receptive also to replication studies and well-performed empirical studies without findings of statistical differences. If your manuscript is intended for a Special Theme of the journal, please indicate this during the submission process as a comment to the editor.

Authors are kindly asked to make sure the manuscript is written in correct and error-free language and follows established principles of scientific writing in e.g., the reporting of research results. The manuscript should be formatted as described in the Submission Preparation Checklist above. Bibliographic references and in-text citations should follow the style of the American Psychological Association (APA) where applicable. Please make sure to include DOIs in the list of references.

Please keep in mind that the journal is multidisciplinary and has readers from many different fields of study. Concepts and cited studies that may not be familiar to a reader from another discipline should be briefly described. Noting the field of study of the researcher cited can often be helpful for the reader. You are also welcome to include a short (max. 200 words) biography or description of yourself (the authors or research group) in the manuscript.

Please limit your manuscript to 8000 words in English or Swedish or 6000 words in Finnish for Research Articles; and 3000 words for Book Reviews and Essays and Commentaries. The reference list is not included in the recommended word limit.

The journal is committed to the highest level of scientific openness, transparency and integrity. Please read the journal’s Competing interests policy and include at the end of your manuscript the following statements:
   Competing interests
   Funding
   Data availability (if applicable)
   Ethics declaration (if applicable)
   AI use statement (see AI use Policy below)
Statements of acknowledgments and author contributions can also be included. The Data availability statement should detail where and how the data, analysis codes etc. can be accessed or a justification for their non-availability. Analysis codes, study forms, etc. can also be included as a supplementary file. 

The journal practices double-blind peer review whenever possible (Research Articles only). Please make sure to submit, as separate files, both the manuscript text including a title page and a fully blinded version of the manuscript text. Please include in the title page all contributor information including affiliations (faculty, department/discipline, university/institution, country) and the e-mail address of the corresponding author (indicated with an asterisk). Please also make sure that all identifying information has been removed from the blinded version of the manuscript. This includes formatting the citations and references in such a way that they do not reveal the authors' identities; removing any author biography; removing any identifying information from documents’ file properties (file name and metadata); and removing any Competing interests disclosures, Acknowledgements, or Data availability statements which could identify the authors. Please submit both a non-blinded and blinded version of any updated manuscript file(s) during the review process as well. At the time of submission, please recommend potential reviewers via the Comments for the Editor text box. You may also present a justification as to why a certain reviewer should not be asked to review your submission.

Please include your abstract text (max. 250 words) both at the beginning of the manuscript file and in the separate text box presented during submission. If your submission is in Finnish or Swedish, please include at the end of the manuscript text an abstract also in English. For book reviews and essays/commentaries, a short description is sufficient instead of a full abstract. In the case of a book review, the abstract or title should include the name of the reviewed book.

Images and tables should be included in the manuscript text at the appropriate points but also as separate files with appropriate image quality for printing.

The journal is fully open access and there are no charges for authors.

Competing interests policy

All authors are required to disclose any competing interests that could influence the interpretation or presentation of their research. Editors and reviewers involved in the peer review process must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts if they have any competing interests that could impair their objectivity. A competing interest exists when an individual’s personal, financial, or professional affiliations could be perceived as affecting the objectivity or integrity of the work submitted. Examples of competing interests include financial interests (employment or consultancy, significant stock ownership, receipt of grants or other funding, patent ownership) and non-financial interests (membership of advisory boards or other organizations, personal relationships).

At the time of submission, all authors must disclose any relevant competing interests. If there are no competing interests, please include the statement “The authors declare that they have no competing interests”. All disclosed competing interests will be published alongside the manuscript to ensure transparency.

AI use policy

Authors, reviewers and editors must fully and clearly disclose all deliberate use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies, such as large language models. Because AI tools may include information from sources without proper attribution, or altogether incorrect information, humans are responsible for carefully reviewing all material and ensuring that sources are cited correctly, permission has been obtained when necessary, and that plagiarism or incorporation of false information has not occured.

Authors must include in the manuscript a statement that discloses whether AI-assisted technologies were deliberately used at any stage of the research or manuscript preparation, and if so, thoroughly describes how AI has been used. Authors must specify which tools were used and detail how they were used (e.g., data analysis, literature review, writing, editing). AI and AI-assisted technologies may not be cited as an author. Undiclosed AI use may result in rejection or retraction.

Reviewers who use AI in their review must disclose its use to the journal. Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts: submitted material should not be uploaded into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Peer review process

All research article manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo peer review prior to publication. Book reviews, essays and commentaries are reviewed by the editorial team and may be published without independent review.

The editorial team reviews all research article submissions, makes a first assessment of their suitability for publication in the journal, and decides whether they will be declined or accepted for peer review. In either case, the corresponding author is notified of the decision. If accepted, a responsible editor is assigned.

The responsible editor seeks reviews of the manuscript from independent experts in the field. Suitable reviewers are researchers with a doctorate degree or other relevant experts, are independent of both the journal and the manuscript under review, and adhere to the Competing interests policy of the journal. Reviewers are not compensated. At least two reviews must be obtained for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. The journal practices double-blind peer review whenever possible, where both authors and reviewers are unaware of each other’s identities. However, the identities of all reviewers along with their reports are retained by the journal.

Each reviewer is asked to assess the manuscript’s scientific merits, including such aspects as clarity and originality, methodological validity and reliability, interpretation of results, and drawing of conclusions. Each reviewer then suggests that the manuscript is either rejected or accepted with or without specific revisions. Based on the reviewers’ opinions, the responsible editor, in consultation with the wider editorial board when necessary, makes the final decision on whether the submission can be accepted. The corresponding author is informed of the decision and any revisions that will be necessary. The author is also provided with copies of the reviewers’ reports.

The peer review process of the journal adheres to the recommendations of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies.