Credit attached to your work
Publish under your author name, with professional context and an eligible public author profile.
A connected body of published work.
Publish with MedPublica
Turn medical knowledge, evidence or a considered perspective into published work under your name—with editorial review, professional presentation and citation tools.
Account creation, verification, contributor approval and publication are separate decisions.
What publishing here offers
Publish work that represents your thinking, connects to your identity and rewards the reader’s attention.
Publish under your author name, with professional context and an eligible public author profile.
A connected body of published work.
Editors assess the explanation, evidence and scope. Present your contribution in a format appropriate to professional medical writing.
Your voice remains your own.
Use a public article link, publication details and the available citation formats and downloads.
A publication readers and colleagues can refer to.
What we consider
Bring a focused explanation, evidence analysis or considered perspective. The format should fit the evidence and your responsible scope.
Other formats are considered under our Editorial Standards.
Explain a concept, misconception or difficult question with accurate sources and clear uncertainty.
Examine what a body of evidence supports, its limits and what a reader can reasonably conclude.
Develop a reasoned argument, distinguishing experience and interpretation from general evidence.
Clarify an issue in communication, education, healthcare practice or systems.
Responsible scope
Case-based, patient-derived and original research material requires additional scrutiny of consent, ethics and appropriate governance. Discuss it with the editorial team before submission.
Good territory
Explain what supports the claims, where interpretation begins and what remains uncertain.
Not the right format
Unsupported claims, concealed promotion, plagiarism and unsafe patient material may be declined.
The publication process
Establish your account, prepare the work, and respond to editorial assessment. Submission does not guarantee publication.
Chapter one
Open the contributor workspace and establish the account behind the work.
Access follows the relevant verification and contributor-approval decisions.Submit the appropriate professional or educational evidence for review.
Prepare the authorised public context that may accompany eligible published work.
Public fields follow your profile visibility controls.Chapter two
Use the guided workspace to turn one useful question into an Article.
A submission needs enough substance and sources for assessment.Editors examine clarity, evidence, scope and reader understanding.
Editors may request revisions, recommend approval or decline the work.Respond to feedback and decide how to strengthen the work.
You remain responsible for the contribution.Chapter three
Final approval rests with the Chief Editor or an authorised Administrator acting under the editorial workflow.
When ready and approved, it becomes part of your visible body of work.
A named publication readers can read, share and cite.Separate decisions: Account creation, verification, contributor approval and publication remain separate states.
Authoritative status: Your dashboard shows the current state. Emails are notifications only.
What editors look for
We assess purpose, evidence, scope and reader value. Originality, permissions, conflicts and patient privacy matter throughout.
The author remains responsible for the work.
The published record
Readers can identify the author, examine the references and inspect the available publication and editorial record.
Readers can understand who is speaking, how the work was handled and where the Article’s educational limits sit.
Real author names remain text, and profile links appear only when public eligibility allows them.
Only authorised public professional information may appear.
Submission does not guarantee publication, and Editors cannot publish directly.
Copy a citation or download the available reference formats from the article.
Discuss a contribution
Contact the editorial team with the question, your intended reader and the perspective you would bring.
Questions before you begin
Registration is direct. Verification, contributor approval, public-profile eligibility and publication are separate reviewed decisions.
A public medical article under your name, publication details, the available citation tools and editorial record, and a connection to your eligible public author profile. Readers and colleagues can read, share and refer to the work.
Doctors, clinicians, medical educators, researchers and other eligible healthcare contributors may apply. Eligible medical students, interns and trainees are welcome when their work is appropriately scoped and their training status is accurate. Account holders must be at least 18; verification and contributor approval remain separate decisions.
The article passed MedPublica’s internal editorial workflow. Editors assess clarity, evidence, responsible scope and publication standards. The available article record describes the handling that occurred. Routine editorial review is not external academic peer review or independent specialist endorsement.
No. Accurately represent your professional or training context, write within a responsible scope and support your claims. Some subjects or submissions require expertise or governance beyond the routine process.
You can create an account without a finished manuscript. An article submitted for review should contain a clear idea, substantive work and sufficient sources for assessment.
No. MedPublica may decline, hold or request changes to a submission. Review, feedback and response times depend on editorial capacity and the work involved; there is no fixed acceptance or turnaround promise.
Authors retain ownership of original work, subject to third-party rights and the Terms of Service. Submission grants MedPublica a non-exclusive publishing licence covering the uses described in those Terms. It does not make the article freely reusable under a Creative Commons licence.
MedPublica provides a named public publication record and the available citation and author-identity features. Record the article according to its actual type and review process. Institutions and external databases apply their own requirements for academic credit and indexing.
No. MedPublica’s article metadata supports scholarly discovery and accurate attribution. Google Scholar applies its own content and inclusion requirements; metadata is not a guarantee that an individual article will be indexed.
Yes, through the controlled published-revision workflow. Approved changes pass editorial review before replacing the live version. Relevant dates and correction notices should reflect the changes accurately.
No. Account creation, verification, contributor approval, profile completion and public visibility are separate states. Public fields and profile access follow MedPublica’s privacy controls.
Disclose previous publication and any applicable rights or restrictions before submission. The editors assess originality, permissions and fit under MedPublica’s standards.
The author remains responsible for the work. Editors may give feedback and edit presentation; assistance must not misrepresent authorship or replace the author’s contribution.
Your next contribution
Bring knowledge, a well-developed question or a perspective worth sharing. Prepare your contributor account and publish work that represents your thinking and respects the reader.
Read our Editorial Standards before submitting.
Two ways to contribute
Connect evidence, interpretation and limitations in a detailed medical contribution.
Two reviewer approvals → Chief approval → Publication
Write an Article →A concise, complete health-related explanation, question, research finding, observation, professional experience or informed viewpoint. Evidence follows the claims; editorial review applies.
Editor approval → Chief publication
Write a Blog →Not sure where your writing belongs? Begin writing. An editor can help determine the appropriate format.
Can this be explained more simply without losing accuracy?
Clear writing is not less intelligent. It is intelligence made usable.
What supports this statement?
Readers should be able to distinguish evidence, interpretation and uncertainty.
Is this education, interpretation or personal medical advice?
The boundary should be visible rather than left for the reader to guess.
What might a careful non-specialist misunderstand here?
Useful medical writing anticipates confusion before it becomes misinformation.