Announcement
Two Ways to Publish Medical Writing: MedPublica Articles and Blogs
Official platform update
Not every worthwhile medical contribution needs to follow the same structure.
Some questions require a detailed examination of evidence, mechanisms and competing explanations. Others emerge from a focused observation, a specific research question, an experience in medical practice or an idea that deserves to be discussed.
Both can contribute to medical understanding, but they do not necessarily require the same form of writing.
MedPublica now offers two distinct publication formats: MedPublica Articles and MedPublica Blogs.
This distinction allows contributors to choose a format that suits the work they want to develop, while keeping authorship, evidence and editorial responsibility central to the publication.
Why MedPublica introduced two publishing formats
Medical knowledge is not produced or communicated in only one way.
A researcher may want to examine a complex question through several studies. A clinician may wish to discuss an observation from everyday practice. A medical student may discover a focused subject worth explaining, while an educator may want to address a recurring misunderstanding.
These contributions differ in scope, but each can have value when developed responsibly.
A single publishing format can create an unnecessary choice: either expand every idea into an extensive manuscript or leave smaller, focused contributions without an appropriate place.
MedPublica Articles and Blogs are designed to accommodate these different forms of medical writing without treating one as inherently more credible than the other.
The distinction is primarily about the purpose, depth and scope of the contribution.
MedPublica Articles: Explore a subject in depth
MedPublica Articles are intended for developed medical writing that benefits from a substantial examination of its subject.
An Article may explore a medical mechanism, analyse evidence surrounding a clinical or scientific question, examine a healthcare issue or develop a detailed educational explanation.
The writer has room to establish relevant background, connect findings, examine limitations and build an argument that readers can follow.
For example, a contribution investigating the possible biological significance of a little-understood anatomical structure may need to explain its anatomy, historical interpretation, recent experimental findings and remaining uncertainties.
Such a subject is difficult to address responsibly through a few isolated observations. Its value lies partly in how the evidence is brought together.
Our published Article, Rete Ovarii: A Fertility Mystery or a Useless Remnant?, illustrates how a specialised medical question can be developed into a wider explanation.
An Article does not need to be long for the sake of length. It needs enough development to fulfil its purpose.
The defining quality of a MedPublica Article is depth of treatment, not word count alone.
MedPublica Blogs: Something worth sharing
Not every medical idea needs an extensive Article.
Sometimes, the most useful contribution begins with one clearly defined question, a professional observation, a focused explanation or a perspective that deserves attention.
MedPublica Blogs provide a distinct publishing space for these contributions.
A Blog may explore:
- A specific medical or healthcare question that can be answered within a focused scope.
- An observation about medical education, training or professional practice.
- A considered viewpoint on an issue affecting healthcare.
- A focused explanation of a finding or emerging area of research.
- An experience that offers a useful lesson, without exposing private patient information.
- A side project or developing area of professional interest that can be presented responsibly as a complete contribution.
For example, someone working in a clinical environment may notice that patients frequently misunderstand a particular aspect of discharge instructions. A focused discussion of that communication problem—what the observation suggests, what evidence supports it and what remains uncertain—may be suitable for a Blog.
That does not mean one observation establishes a general clinical conclusion. The author must make the limits of personal experience clear.
Blogs are intended to make room for meaningful, focused writing, not unfinished Articles, unsupported opinions or material exempt from editorial scrutiny.
A concise contribution can still be carefully reasoned, appropriately sourced and complete.
How should contributors choose between an Article and a Blog?
The most useful starting question is not “How many words am I planning to write?”
It is “What does my subject need in order to be properly understood?”
| Consider | Article | Blog |
|---|---|---|
| Main purpose | Develop a subject in depth | Address a focused subject |
| Scope | Broader context or several connected questions | One central question, observation or perspective |
| Explanation | Detailed development of evidence and reasoning | Concise but complete reasoning |
| Evidence | Sufficient to support the broader discussion | Appropriate to the specific claims made |
| Typical result | A developed medical explanation or analysis | A focused, self-contained contribution |
These are editorial distinctions, not rigid word-count categories.
A narrow subject can deserve an Article when understanding it requires substantial analysis. Likewise, an experienced clinician may offer a valuable Blog focused on a single professional insight.
The format should follow the contribution, rather than forcing the contribution to fit a predetermined length.
Are MedPublica Blogs editorially reviewed?
Yes. Both Articles and Blogs are subject to MedPublica’s editorial standards.
However, their approval pathways are not identical.
Under MedPublica’s current editorial framework:
MedPublica Articles require two reviewer approvals followed by the appropriate Chief Editor approval before publication.
MedPublica Blogs follow a substantive editor-review pathway and a Chief publication stage. An eligible Chief may fulfil both roles where the applicable policy permits. Additional review may be required when concerns arise.
Authors cannot review or publish their own work.
Editors may request changes, identify concerns about evidence or scope, or decline unsuitable submissions. Required changes must be resolved before publication.
The review should be appropriate to the contribution and the risks associated with its claims. A concise Blog making consequential medical statements does not receive permission to make those claims without adequate support merely because it is shorter.
It is also important to distinguish MedPublica’s internal editorial review from formal external academic peer review. Publication on MedPublica does not automatically mean independent specialist endorsement or recognition as a peer-reviewed journal paper.
Our Editorial Standards and Corrections explain these responsibilities and the current review requirements in greater detail.
Can medical students, interns and early-career doctors contribute?
MedPublica welcomes applications from eligible medical students, interns, trainees, doctors, clinicians, researchers, educators and other eligible healthcare contributors.
A contributor does not need to present themselves as a senior specialist to communicate something useful.
What matters is that their professional or educational status is accurately represented, their work remains within a responsible scope, and their claims are supported appropriately.
For someone beginning to write publicly, a focused Blog may offer a suitable way to develop one question or professional observation into a complete contribution. Others may already have a subject that warrants an in-depth Article.
Neither route guarantees publication.
Account registration, verification, contributor approval and editorial acceptance remain separate decisions.
What kind of medical writing is appropriate?
Both formats are intended for responsible educational and professional contributions.
MedPublica considers writing that helps readers understand medical concepts, evaluate evidence, explore healthcare issues or examine informed professional perspectives.
Whatever the format, contributors should distinguish established evidence from emerging findings, interpretation, opinion and personal experience.
Some material requires particular caution.
Patient-derived information, case reports and original research may involve consent, ethical approval, privacy safeguards, reporting requirements or other forms of governance. Choosing the Blog format does not remove these responsibilities.
Neither Articles nor Blogs should be used to provide individual diagnoses, unsafe treatment recommendations, misleading promotional claims or unsupported medical conclusions.
The contribution should be useful to its intended reader and defensible under the applicable editorial standards.
How do I begin publishing with MedPublica?
Begin with a question, explanation, observation or perspective that you believe would be useful to others.
Consider the scope of the subject and the evidence needed to support it. From there, decide whether it would be better developed as an Article or a Blog.
If you are uncertain, you can begin writing and seek editorial guidance about the appropriate format.
Contributors use the MedPublica workspace to prepare their work and submit it for editorial review. Depending on the submission, the editorial team may request revisions, clarification, additional evidence or changes to its scope.
Authors remain responsible for the integrity and accuracy of their work, and publication is subject to the relevant approval process.
For current eligibility, registration and submission information, visit Publish With MedPublica.
One publication, room for different medical voices
The introduction of Articles and Blogs reflects a straightforward principle: valuable medical writing takes different forms.
Some contributions deserve to become detailed explanations that readers can return to as developed references. Others are most useful when they address one specific question clearly and responsibly.
We want MedPublica to provide room for both.
The goal is not to publish more words. It is to help worthwhile medical thinking reach readers in a form that does justice to the subject.