<p>While research on the network approach to psychopathology has surged and clinical applications of this approach are frequently discussed, several key conceptual and methodological challenges remain. This collection aimed to bring together studies that advance knowledge on the network theory and its application to clinical practice. In this Editorial, we reflect on conceptual and methodological issues that are investigated in the 14 studies included in the collection. We discuss the distinction of idiographic and nomothetic inference with individual- and group-level analysis, and evaluate how different approaches can meaningfully inform clinical research. Considering methodological challenges of different network analyses, we also address measurement, robustness, and alternative ways of network construction. Finally, we critically explore the potential and limitations of various study types adopting the network approach for informing clinical practice. Expanding on the insights that emerge from the collection as a whole, we identify important directions forward. Specifically, nomothetic or idiographic aims and the level of analysis need to be clearly defined in future studies, the methodological soundness of network analyses needs to be further improved and it needs to be continuously evaluated if and how findings from network analyses can be translated into clinical practice. Together, such advances can hopefully help to use the potential of the network approach for a better understanding, prevention and treatment of mental disorders.</p>