Contribute an expert perspective.

Shrinkopedia publishes short, attributed perspectives from qualified clinicians and researchers on specific mental-health concepts. This page is the full description: who is eligible, what we publish, what you receive in return, and how to submit.

Program overseen by Shariq Refai, MD, MBA. Last reviewed July 25, 2026.

What contributing is

A Shrinkopedia expert perspective is a single short answer to a single bounded question, attached to one existing concept entry. It is 150-400 words. It carries your name, credentials, and affiliation inline on the concept page. It links to a permanent profile at shrinkopedia.com/contributors/<your-slug>/ that you can cite on your CV, biography, or hospital profile.

It is not a guest blog post. It is not a full article. It is not a chance to promote your practice, product, or program. It is a structured contribution to the concept-level knowledge on Shrinkopedia, from someone with real expertise on the specific question being answered. The format is deliberately tight because that is what makes it usable both for readers and as a source AI answer engines will cite.

Who is eligible

You must hold verifiable credentials that make you a qualified voice on the specific question you want to answer. The bar is expertise on the specific topic, not seniority in the field generally.

Contributors typically come from these backgrounds:

• Physicians in psychiatry. MD or DO with board certification in psychiatry (ABPN or an equivalent international body), or in the final years of an accredited psychiatry residency or fellowship with a supervising attending's endorsement. Subspecialty board certification (child, addiction, forensic, geriatric, consultation-liaison, reproductive, sports and performance) welcome for topics in your subspecialty.
• Physicians outside psychiatry. MD or DO with subject-matter relevance (for example, neurologists on neuropsychiatric topics, OB-GYNs on perinatal mental-health topics, primary-care physicians on general adult mental-health topics).
• Doctoral psychologists. PhD or PsyD in clinical, counseling, or a related applied field, with licensure or eligibility in your jurisdiction.
• Master's-level licensed clinicians. LCSW, LMFT, LPC/LMHC, or equivalent, with subject-matter expertise on the specific question. Independent licensure and current clinical practice preferred.
• Psychiatric pharmacists. PharmD with BCPP certification or equivalent psychiatric pharmacotherapy specialization, for topics touching medication mechanisms, interactions, or pharmacotherapy decision-making.
• Advanced practice psychiatric nurses. PMHNP-BC or equivalent psychiatric nurse practitioner certification.
• Research faculty. Active academic appointment with primary research focus in the topic area. Peer-reviewed publications on the specific topic are the strongest signal.

Retired clinicians with active academic engagement and demonstrable current knowledge are welcome. Emeritus faculty are welcome. Trainees (residents, fellows, doctoral candidates) can contribute with an attending's or advisor's endorsement identified on the profile.

What we do not accept: coaches without clinical licensure, wellness practitioners without an accredited clinical credential, sales or marketing professionals, and anyone whose credential cannot be independently verified. This is not a comment on the person's value. It is about the credential floor Shrinkopedia sets so that named expert perspectives here carry consistent editorial weight.

What we publish

Bounded expert perspectives on specific concepts. Some examples of the kind of question that works:

• On panic disorder: "Why does avoiding the situations that trigger panic tend to make panic disorder worse?"
• On OCD: "What do people most commonly misunderstand about intrusive thoughts?"
• On major depressive disorder: "What tends to differentiate a treatment-resistant depression that will respond to a switch from one that needs augmentation?"
• On ADHD: "What do adult patients newly diagnosed with ADHD most often need help understanding about stimulant medication?"
• On rumination: "Why is rumination so much harder to stop than deliberate problem-solving that looks similar from the outside?"

A good question is narrow enough to answer well in 400 words, sits firmly inside your area of expertise, and does not duplicate what the entry already says. Perspectives that would just restate the entry body are not published. Perspectives that add something specific to the reader's understanding of the concept are.

What you receive

• A permanent citation URL. Your perspective lives at a stable anchor on the concept page, and your profile lives at shrinkopedia.com/contributors/<your-slug>/. Both URLs are canonical, indexed, and will not move.
• A structured contributor profile. Your credentials, affiliation, area of expertise, disclosures, and links to your institutional, academic, or professional profiles. Every concept page where your perspective appears is linked from the profile.
• Person schema with authoritative identifiers. Your profile emits structured Person JSON-LD linked via sameAs to Wikidata, ORCID, or other identifiers you supply, so search engines and AI answer engines can recognize you consistently across the web. This is the same schema pattern used for named academic authors.
• Inline attribution on every concept page you appear on. Your name, credentials, and affiliation appear at the top of every perspective, with a link back to your full profile.
• A formal citation format you can list on your CV. See "Citation format" below. Contributions may be cited using Vancouver-style referencing appropriate for a peer-adjacent editorial publication.
• Announcement on Shrinkopedia's channels when the perspective publishes. Newly published perspectives are featured in the site RSS feed and, where relevant, in ShrinkDaily's daily-concept rotation.
• The right to link back from your own bio. You are encouraged to add your contributor URL to your university biography, practice website, hospital profile, LinkedIn, or personal site. Reciprocal linking is not required, but it is the primary reason this program benefits contributors long-term.
• An optional "Featured contributor at Shrinkopedia" badge. A small HTML snippet plus SVG badge you can embed on your own site that links back to your canonical Shrinkopedia contributor profile. Fully optional, no requirement to display. Snippet is available on your contributor profile page after publication.

This is deliberately not paid contribution. Shrinkopedia does not pay contributors, and contributors do not pay Shrinkopedia. The arrangement is editorial: your name, our platform, one specific concept the reader is trying to understand.

Citation format for your CV or biography

Shrinkopedia is a psychiatrist-reviewed editorial publication. Named contributions are citable in Vancouver style as:

Contributors may list published perspectives under "Editorial contributions," "Public-facing scholarship," or similar sections of a CV as appropriate for their field. Shrinkopedia does not claim indexing in PubMed or peer-reviewed academic journals; the publication is an editorially reviewed clinical reference, not a research journal.

Editorial standards

Every perspective must:

• Answer one bounded question, not summarize a whole topic.
• Stay within 150-400 words.
• Sit within the contributor's declared expertise.
• Be evidence-based. Claims about mechanisms, prevalence, treatment efficacy, or diagnostic criteria must be defensible against current primary literature (DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, NICE, APA practice guidelines, Cochrane systematic reviews, NIMH, SAMHSA, CDC, FDA labeling, or peer-reviewed primary research indexed in PubMed). Contributors are not asked to cite inline, but the editorial team may ask for source support on any specific claim before publication.
• Distinguish established evidence from opinion. Phrases like "in my clinical experience," "some clinicians would say," or "the evidence is mixed" are welcome when accurate. Confident claims that outrun the evidence are not.
• Not include patient identifiers, patient stories, or composite clinical vignettes that could identify a real person.
• Not promote specific practices, providers, products, services, or programs, including the contributor's own.
• Carry the standard inline disclosure noting that the perspective represents the contributor's expert opinion, distinct from Shrinkopedia's editorial position.
• Reviewer names appear only on pages you actually reviewed. If your name ever appears on a "medically reviewed by" line, you read and approved the current published version. This is a network-wide standard, not a Shrinkopedia preference.
• Hard recusal on financial conflicts. Contributors recuse from pages where they have a current financial relationship with a manufacturer, provider, or product being discussed. Disclosure alone is not sufficient for this class of conflict; a current financial relationship requires that the contributor not write or review that page.
• AI-assisted disclosure. Contributor-authored text must be by the named contributor. If AI-assisted drafting is used at any stage of a contribution, it is disclosed to the contributor and consented to before publication.

The Shrinkopedia editorial team reviews every draft before publication. Review focuses on unsupported claims, voice, format, and fit with the concept entry. The medical-reviewer role for the surrounding entry remains held by Dr. Shariq Refai, and that role is separate from your perspective. If your perspective ever diverges from Shrinkopedia's editorial position on a specific point, both are labeled clearly and the reader can see the difference.

What we do not publish

• Guest posts that duplicate what an entry already covers.
• Provider directories, "best doctor" lists, or clinician rankings. Shrinkopedia will never publish ranked lists of clinicians.
• Perspectives that turn a concept page into promotion for the contributor's practice, product, service, or program.
• Perspectives on topics outside the contributor's declared expertise. A cardiologist writing about ADHD is not what this program is for.
• Perspectives that would compromise editorial independence or the integrity of Shrinkopedia's concept architecture.
• Anonymous contributions. Every perspective is attributed by full name and verified credentials.
• Perspectives promoting off-label use of medications, unapproved interventions, or clinical positions outside current guidelines without an explicit editorial framing that the position is contested.
• Ghostwritten content credited to a contributor. If someone else wrote the substantive analysis, that person is the contributor. Byline follows authorship.
• Inflated credentials or unverifiable claims. Every credential listed on your profile is verified against a public source. Credentials that cannot be verified are removed.
• Cross-promotion tied to a contribution. No "if I contribute, will you send me referrals" arrangements. No editorial recognition tied to referral behavior. See the Anti-Kickback section below.

Anti-Kickback and referral considerations

The Shrink Network is founded by Shariq Refai, MD, MBA, who also owns shrinkMD. That single-owner relationship between an editorial network and a clinical practice is what makes this section load-bearing. Every editorial site in the network handles any potential connection to shrinkMD as if the federal Anti-Kickback Statute applies, because for many patients and payers, it does.

Never permitted, network-wide:

• Recognition, badges, features, or free services tied to referral behavior.
• Financial or in-kind compensation to referring clinicians.
• Gift cards, meals, event tickets, honoraria, or other things of value offered in exchange for or with the expectation of referrals.
• "Preferred referral" designations that clinicians can qualify for by referring.
• Contributor selection that considers past or promised referrals.
• Combined outreach that pairs an editorial contribution with a referral request.
• Language stating or implying "we published you, so please refer."

What this means for you as a Shrinkopedia contributor. Being invited to contribute, or being published, is never tied to a referral relationship with shrinkMD. Past or promised referrals cannot influence contributor selection. If shrinkMD ever reaches out to you separately about anything, that communication is not connected to your Shrinkopedia contribution and will explicitly state so.

The full network standard is at shrinknetwork.com/network-governance under "Referral relationships and Anti-Kickback compliance".

Credential verification

Before publication, the editorial team verifies:

• Your credential status through an authoritative source (state medical board, ABPN, ABMS, ASWB, state licensure lookup, university faculty page, ABMS certification lookup, NPI registry, or equivalent).
• The link between your name and the affiliation you list. Institutional affiliations that cannot be confirmed will be published as "independent practice" instead.
• Any disclosures you provide, and any financial or professional relationships that a reasonable reader would want to know about given the topic you are addressing.

Verification is not a background check. It confirms the specific credential and affiliation Shrinkopedia will publish about you. If a credential cannot be verified, we work with you to resolve or we do not publish.

Medical review is a separate role

Every Shrinkopedia entry is medically reviewed by Shariq Refai, MD, MBA, a board-certified psychiatrist. Your contributed perspective sits inside the entry as a distinct, named voice. The medical-reviewer role for the entry itself is not transferred to you, and you are not being asked to certify the accuracy of the entire entry. You are certifying the accuracy of your own perspective on the one bounded question you answered.

How to submit

Use the application checklist for a structured intake, or email [email protected] directly with all of the following:

1. Full name and current credentials, with license numbers or diplomate IDs where applicable.
2. Current institution or practice.
3. NPI or equivalent registry link if you have one (state licensure lookup, ABPN CertiFACTS, university faculty page).
4. Specialty and scope of practice, in two to four sentences describing what you are qualified to speak on.
5. Written disclosures. Financial interests, industry relationships, employers, board seats, equity, speaker bureaus. If none, say so.
6. Which concept entry and question you would like to contribute to. See topics we need for open questions, or propose your own.
7. Sample writing, 200 to 400 words, on a topic in your scope. Published or unpublished. This lets the editorial team see your voice and evidence handling.
8. Two professional references (name, title, institution, email) we can contact if needed.
9. External profile links you want listed on your contributor profile (ORCID, university faculty page, practice website, hospital biography, LinkedIn, Wikidata, other).
10. Written acknowledgment that you have read and agree to the editorial standards on this page and the network governance standard at shrinknetwork.com/network-governance.

Do not send a finished perspective in the first email. The editorial team confirms the question is appropriate for the entry, agrees on the specific angle, and then requests the draft. This protects your time and ours.

Timeline

Expect the following:

• Initial response: within 21 days of your email, per the network master standard.
• Question confirmation and scope-setting: one to two rounds of email over one to two weeks.
• Draft period: typically two to four weeks after scope is confirmed. Contributors sometimes turn a draft in the same day.
• Editorial review: one to two weeks. If revisions are needed, the editorial team is direct about what needs to change and why.
• Publication: once the draft is approved, the contributor profile is built, the perspective is attached to the concept page, and both go live together. You are notified when the pages publish and receive the canonical URLs for citation, plus the optional "Featured contributor at Shrinkopedia" badge snippet for your own site.

Total elapsed time from first email to publication typically runs four to eight weeks. Contributors with tighter turnarounds are accommodated where possible.

Corrections, withdrawal, and revocation

Contributors can correct factual errors in their contribution at any time by contacting the editorial team. Corrections are logged in the concept page's revision history.

Contributors can withdraw a contribution at any time by request. The perspective is removed from the concept page and from the contributor profile within 30 days. If the withdrawal is because of a factual error, we prefer a correction first, but withdrawal is your right.

If a contributor's credentials lapse, if a licensure action is filed, or if a disclosure emerges that would change the meaning of a contribution, the contributor profile is suspended pending review. Every page authored or reviewed by that contributor is editorially re-checked within 30 days. If review concludes the contribution is still accurate and defensible, the profile is restored. If review concludes otherwise, the profile is revoked and affected pages are re-edited or removed. Revocations are logged publicly in Corrections.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to be affiliated with a well-known institution?

No. What matters is that your credential and current role are verifiable and that the specific question you want to answer sits within your expertise. Independent-practice clinicians, community clinicians, retired academics, and researchers at any accredited institution are all welcome.

Can I contribute anonymously or under a pseudonym?

No. All contributions are attributed by full name and verified credentials. The public-attribution requirement is part of what makes the perspective usable and citable.

Can I contribute to more than one concept?

Yes. Many contributors will end up with several perspectives across concepts within their expertise. Each perspective is its own bounded submission and goes through the same review.

What if my perspective disagrees with the entry's editorial position?

That is publishable in most cases. Named disagreement between qualified experts is part of what makes an editorial reference honest. The perspective will carry the standard inline disclosure noting that it represents your expert opinion, distinct from Shrinkopedia's editorial position, and the reader can see both.

Can I retract or update my perspective later?

Yes. You can request an update at any time. Editorial review applies to updates. If you want your perspective removed entirely, we remove it and note the retraction in the entry's revision history.

Do I retain rights to my perspective?

You retain moral rights to your perspective. Shrinkopedia publishes it non-exclusively for use on this site. You may republish or reuse your perspective elsewhere with attribution to its original publication on Shrinkopedia.

Do I get paid?

No. Contributors are not paid and do not pay. The exchange is editorial: your named expertise on our concept page, and the permanent citation URL, contributor profile, and structured schema that follow from that.

Do I need to be a US-based clinician?

No. International contributors are welcome. Perspectives should be relevant to the international reader on the specific concept, and country-specific claims should be labeled as such.

Will my perspective still be published if I move institutions?

Yes. The perspective remains published under your name and the credentials you held at the time of publication. Your contributor profile can be updated with your new affiliation if you send us an update.

What if I make an error?

Contact the editorial team. Substantive corrections are made promptly and noted in the entry's revision history. Corrections do not affect the contributor's standing.

Related documents

• Topics we need: open questions by concept
• Current contributors
• Editorial strategy
• Editorial standards
• How we review evidence
• Disclosures
• Corrections