Computers in Human Behavior Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: CHB author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the contribution is psychological or behavioral
• whether theoretical grounding is rigorous
• whether methodology is adequate

• a clear psychological or behavioral contribution
• theoretical grounding in established psychological or behavioral theory
• rigorous methodology with adequate sample, validated measures, and appropriate analysis
• technology-behavior focus as primary contribution
• a cover letter establishing the psychological or behavioral contribution

• Descriptive technology adoption studies without behavioral analysis.
• Weak theoretical grounding.
• Methodological gaps (small samples, weak measures, inadequate analysis).
• Pure technology studies without behavioral focus.

CHB is the flagship technology-behavior research journal.

Psychological-rigor expectation: the journal differentiates from technology-focused journals by demanding psychological or behavioral rigor.

Theoretical-grounding expectation: editors expect engagement with established psychology or behavioral theory.

The 40-50% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest CHB cover letters establish:

• the psychological or behavioral contribution
• the theoretical grounding
• the methodological approach
• the central finding

• Is Computers in Human Behavior a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through a CHB psychological rigor readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with technology-behavior manuscripts targeting CHB, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of CHB desk rejections trace to descriptive framing without behavioral analysis. In our experience, roughly 25% involve weak theoretical grounding. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from methodological gaps.

• Descriptive technology adoption studies without behavioral analysis. CHB editors look for psychological or behavioral contributions, not just technology adoption data. We observe submissions reporting adoption rates or usage patterns without behavioral analysis routinely desk-rejected.

• Weak theoretical grounding. Editors expect engagement with established psychological or behavioral theory. We see manuscripts reporting empirical findings without theoretical grounding routinely declined.

• Methodological gaps. CHB specifically expects rigorous methodology with adequate samples, validated measures, and appropriate statistical analysis. We find papers with small samples, ad-hoc measures, or weak analysis routinely returned. A CHB psychological rigor readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places CHB among top technology-behavior journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top technology-behavior journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be psychological or behavioral, not descriptive; submissions reporting only technology adoption or usage patterns fail at desk screening. Second, theoretical grounding should engage with established psychology or behavioral theory. Third, methodology should include adequate sample size, validated measures, and appropriate statistical analysis. Fourth, the technology-behavior focus should be primary; pure technology studies fit specialty venues better.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for CHB is the descriptive-versus-psychological distinction. CHB editors expect psychological or behavioral analysis, not just technology adoption studies. Submissions framed as "we measured how often users engage with feature X" routinely receive "where is the psychology?" feedback during desk screening. We coach authors to lead with the psychological or behavioral question and frame the technology in service of that question. Papers framed as "we tested whether mechanism X explains the relationship between technology use Y and outcome Z, drawing on theoretical framework W" receive better editorial traction. The same logic applies across rigorous technology-behavior journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the psychological question.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for CHB. First, manuscripts where the abstract emphasizes technology features rather than psychological or behavioral processes are flagged at desk for descriptive framing. We recommend the abstract's central sentences state the psychological or behavioral question, the theoretical framework, and the central finding. Second, manuscripts where measures are ad-hoc rather than validated scales are flagged for measurement gaps. We recommend using validated psychological measures where appropriate. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with CHB's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.