FOR LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Become a clinical reviewer for mental health content.
PsyMed publishes free mental health self-assessments and plain-language explainers used by hundreds of thousands of people a year. We are inviting licensed professionals to review that content for clinical accuracy, context and safety — so readers get information that is careful, current and honest about its limits.
- Evidence-led content
- Independent clinical perspective
- Credit by agreement, never by default
- Review, not endorsement
You examine accuracy, context and safety. You are not certifying a test or making diagnostic claims on our behalf.
- Clear editorial boundaries
Clinical input shapes the page. PsyMed remains the publisher and keeps editorial responsibility for what it publishes.
- Recognition by agreement
Credentials are verified on the issuing board register, and public credit is agreed with you before any work begins.
A helpful self-check deserves careful explanation.
People arrive at PsyMed trying to understand depression, anxiety, attention, relationships or other psychological experiences. The question may be simple. The information around the answer rarely is.
We want readers to understand the difference between a self-report screening tool, an original educational quiz, and a professional assessment — three things that are routinely confused online, with real consequences. Reviewers help us find where our explanations need more precision, more nuance, or fewer words.
Read how PsyMed builds its testsWhere your expertise would make a difference.
Assignments depend on your verified qualifications, your areas of practice, and a scope of work agreed with you in advance. We match tests to credentials rather than letting anyone review anything.
- ◈01 / CONTENT ACCURACY
Clinical language and claims
Check that explanations of symptoms, diagnostic concepts and treatment options match current published sources — and flag anything stated more confidently than the evidence allows.
Clear descriptions, fewer misleading claims - ☷02 / QUESTIONNAIRES
Test descriptions and scoring context
Review whether a page correctly identifies its instrument, purpose, limitations and interpretation. Formal psychometric validation is a separate research process and is not what we are asking for.
Honest measurement boundaries - ✱03 / USER SAFETY
Responsible next steps
Spot language that could encourage self-diagnosis, stigmatise a reader, or miss the point where someone should be pointed toward professional or crisis support.
Sensitive, supportive communication - ⌕04 / REFERENCES
Source quality and currency
Identify outdated studies, oversimplified statistics, secondary sources standing in for primary ones, and places where the evidence is genuinely uncertain and should say so.
Transparent, traceable sources
What does a thoughtful review look like?
Choose a topic to see the kind of questions a qualified reviewer might put to a page. These are illustrations of the work — not a claim that any particular page has already passed external clinical review.
Depression and persistent low mood
Review whether a page distinguishes everyday low mood, depressive symptoms and persistent depressive disorder without implying a questionnaire can diagnose any of them.
- Are duration and impairment explained accurately?
- Is the difference between screening and diagnosis clear?
- Does the next-step guidance match the severity of the topic?
Four clear steps, from introduction to review.
This is the collaboration workflow we propose. Scope, scheduling, attribution and terms are agreed with you before you accept an assignment.
-
01
Share your interest
Tell us about your professional background, your practice areas, and which topics you would want to look at first.
-
02
Verify credentials
We check your licence on the issuing board’s public register before any scope is discussed. A listing that says verified has to mean it.
-
03
Agree on a brief
Define the subject, the review criteria, the attribution and the timing, in writing, before work begins.
-
04
Review and refine
You give specific feedback. The editorial team checks sources, makes the edits and records what changed against that version.
Experienced people, careful perspectives.
We are looking for professionals whose training and practice relate directly to the content they would review.
- ✓ An active, unrestricted licence in a relevant mental health discipline, verifiable on a public register
- ✓ At least two years of practice since licensure
- ✓ Experience interpreting research and explaining psychological topics accurately
- ✓ A commitment to respectful, stigma-aware language and clearly stated limits
- ✓ Willingness to declare conflicts of interest and review assigned topics objectively
Relevant fields include clinical psychology, psychiatry, psychiatric nursing, counselling, clinical social work, marriage and family therapy, addiction counselling, and speech-language or educational psychology for learning-difference content. Students, pre-licensed associates and unlicensed counsellors are not eligible. Suitability depends on the topic and the jurisdiction.
Reviewed by [Name], [Credentials]
Scope: Clinical language and supporting evidence
A public name, credentials and review date appear only after verification, actual review and your explicit agreement. This sample is a format, not an existing reviewer — no one has reviewed for PsyMed yet.
Independence matters.
We do not want a name on a page simply to borrow authority. A reviewer has to be able to raise concerns, require corrections, and decline — and your name only ever appears on a version you approved.
The role is unpaid. Here is what it is worth.
We would rather say it plainly than dress it up: PsyMed does not pay for clinical review. What it gives back is verified standing on pages people land on while they are actively trying to work out what is wrong — and a direct line from those readers to you.
Credentials checked, and dated in public
We match your identity against the federal NPI Registry and confirm your licence with the board that issued it. Both dates sit on your profile where readers can see them, so your listing never asks anyone to take your word for it. Verified members are shown above older unclaimed entries.
A profile that search engines and AI assistants can read
Your page is indexed, structured so assistants answering health questions can quote it correctly, and carries a short video introduction and tags describing how you actually work — alongside a dofollow link to your own practice site.
Readers arrive already filtered
People narrow by specialty, state, insurance and fee, then read how you describe your own work before they write a word. Enquiries are stored encrypted and delivered straight to your inbox.
Referrals from readers who just finished a test
Readers completed just over 13,000 tests on PsyMed in October 2026. At the end of one, a reader can choose to pass on a short summary — which test, which score band, what they are looking for, their state and their insurance — to up to three verified members near them. Nothing moves unless they ask for it, and it reaches your inbox and your dashboard together.
A panel with a ceiling, not a queue
Each specialty is capped at 25 members per metro area. Once a panel is full the next applicant joins a waitlist, rather than being added to a page that just keeps getting longer and less useful to everyone already on it.
Rotation you cannot buy, and a badge you have to earn
Every member gets one week a quarter at the top of their state and specialty pages, on a rotation that runs identically for everyone and is not for sale at any price. Answer enquiries inside 48 hours and your profile says so.
None of this is an offer of employment. Review credit, scope and timing are agreed in writing before you start, and verification is required either way.
Introduce yourself.
Fields marked * are required. Submitting sends your answers to our editorial inbox; we reply from there.
We verify every licence on the issuing board’s own register before anything is published, and your name only ever appears on a version you approved.
A little more about becoming a reviewer.
Direct answers about qualifications, payment, attribution and the limits of the role.
Yes, for clinical review. You need an active, unrestricted licence that can be checked on a public register, plus at least two years of practice since licensure. Researchers with relevant subject expertise may suit evidence-focused work, assessed case by case. Students, pre-licensed associates and unlicensed counsellors are not eligible.
No. This is an unpaid volunteer role, and no money moves in either direction — we do not pay for reviews and you never pay to be listed. In return you get a credit on the tests you approve, a reviewer profile, placement on the result pages of those tests, and a verified listing. We disclose that exchange next to your name on every page you review.
Only with your agreement, and only against work you actually completed. We verify credentials on the issuing board’s register first, you write and approve your own profile text, and the credit is tied to the specific version you reviewed. If we later change the items, the score bands or a clinical claim, the credit pauses until you approve the new version — or we remove your name.
No, and we will not describe it that way. A clinical content review checks descriptions, claims, safety routing and context. Psychometric validation is separate research into properties such as reliability and validity. We say clinically reviewed, never clinically validated or approved.
Yes, and we will keep your details. We are starting with United States licences because credential verification and scope are clearest there, so a collaboration outside the US depends on the register, the language and the subject matter. Tell us where you practise and we will say honestly whether we can act on it yet.
Help readers understand more, without promising more than a test can tell them.
Your expertise would support clearer, more responsible educational content — and your name would only ever sit on work you approved.