For practising clinicians
You do not need more time. You need a paper small enough to finish.
Most clinicians who never publish are not lazy and not short of ideas. They picked a question that needed a year of data they were never going to get, and found out eighteen months in. We fix the scope first, then the writing becomes ordinary work you can do in the gaps.
Two minutes. Every application gets a reply.
work with
Supervision from someone who still sees patients.
[[What he trained in, where he works, what he publishes on, and why he mentors. Be specific: name the journals and specialty.]]
[[Why this service exists.]]
- Clinical[[Post, institution, years]]
- Academic[[Degree, university]]
- Published[[Named journals]]
- Reviewing[[Editorial or peer-review roles]]
- Teaching[[Supervisory or faculty roles]]
goes wrong
Three things stall a first paper, and none of them is writing speed.
If you have started something and it is sitting at forty percent, it is almost certainly one of these.
The scope was never survivable
A question that needs prospective recruitment, an ethics amendment and a statistician you do not have is not a first paper. It is a third paper. The skill nobody teaches is shrinking a real question down to something answerable with data you can actually reach — without making it trivial.
There is no cadence, only good intentions
Research done "when things calm down" does not get done, because things do not calm down. What works is a fixed, small, defended slot and a deliverable due to a named person at the end of every one. Not more hours. The same hours, with a deadline attached.
Nobody reads it until it is too late to change
Most first drafts are shown to a supervisor once, complete, months in — at the point where the structural problem in it is expensive to fix. Work that gets looked at in fragments, early and often, does not accumulate that kind of debt.
included
What you actually get.
A scoping session
One hour at the start, one to one. We take whatever you are interested in and cut it down to a question you can answer with the data and hours you actually have.
Scheduled supervision
[[Frequency]] scheduled calls. You bring what you have; it gets marked up while you watch, so you leave knowing the next concrete task.
Written feedback between calls
Send a section, a table, a paragraph. Annotated and returned within [[N]] working days.
Method and stats support
[[Which methods and software]]
Journal selection and submission
Choosing a realistic target, formatting to its requirements, writing the cover letter, and drafting the response to reviewers when it comes back.
Authorship agreed up front
Whether a mentor goes on the paper is settled in writing at the start, against ICMJE criteria — not negotiated at the end when you have no leverage.
What the calendar honestly looks like.
Nobody can promise you a journal or a date. Acceptance is decided by editors and reviewers neither of us controls, and a first paper is frequently rejected once before it lands. What can be promised is that you will not spend a year on a question that was never going to work, and that [[State the support commitment exactly]].
The arrangement runs both ways. It depends on you keeping [[N]] hours a week, coming to the scheduled calls, and turning work in between them. If that stops, the mentorship stops being useful long before it stops being paid for, and we'll say so.
people start
Your first paper probably shouldn't involve patients.
A systematic review or a well-built retrospective analysis of records you already hold needs no recruitment, no new ethics application and no lab. Reviews sit near the top of the evidence hierarchy and are what guidelines are built from, so this is not a lesser starting point — it is the one with the fewest ways to be blocked by something outside your control.
It is also the fastest way to learn the mechanics: framing a question, building a search, screening, extraction, synthesis, writing to a reporting standard. Those transfer directly to everything you publish afterwards.
The straight answers.
I don't have a topic. Is that a problem?
No — it is the normal starting position and, if anything, easier than arriving attached to a question that will not work. The first session exists to build one, out of what you see clinically, what data you can legitimately reach, and what the literature has left open.
How many hours a week does this really take?
Consistency matters more than volume: [[N]] protected hours every week beats a cleared weekend once a month. If a run of nights makes a fortnight impossible, we replan rather than pretend.
I have no research training at all.
That is expected and it is not the obstacle people assume. Methods are learnable in weeks. What cannot be supplied for you is the weekly time and the willingness to have your drafts marked up.
Will Dr. Khan be an author on my paper?
Only where the contribution meets ICMJE authorship criteria, and only if you want it. It is agreed in writing at the start. The support is the same either way.
Is this a course?
No. There is teaching material, but the substance is supervision: your project, your data, your drafts, reviewed by a named person on a schedule.
What does it cost?
[[PRICE]] for [[duration]]. [[Payment terms]]
Tell me what's actually blocking the paper.
The application takes about two minutes and asks what you are working on, how much time you have, and where it is stuck. If mentorship is the wrong answer for you, I will say so and point you somewhere better.