I have published over 400 peer-reviewed papers. I now work directly with practising clinicians on their first one. Most of the time people lose is not spent writing; it is spent on a topic that was never going to work.
Apply to work with meTwo minutes. Every application gets a reply.
Start here · about 12 minutes
Choosing a topic that can actually be answered. Running a search that gives you an argument instead of nine hundred PDFs. Writing in the order that does not stall. Watch this first; the application will make more sense afterwards.
Who you would be working with
I was a full professor at Oxford in my early thirties and a tenure-track professor at Harvard. My PhD is from Cambridge. I have published over 400 peer-reviewed papers, in journals including Nature, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, PLoS Medicine and PNAS.
What interests me now is a structural problem: why so many capable clinicians never publish. Universities assume you will absorb the mechanics by osmosis. Supervisors are stretched thin. Careful people lose years on topics that were doomed from the first week. FastTrack is what I wish someone had taught me at the beginning.
Why it takes people so long
Most first papers are lost here, months before anyone writes a sentence. The question is unanswerable with the data available, or it has been answered four times already.
An unfocused literature search returns nine hundred papers and no argument. Done properly it returns forty and tells you exactly where your contribution sits.
People write the introduction first. It is the last thing you can write honestly, and starting there is why drafts stall at 60 percent for a year.
Fix those three and the timeline collapses, not because anyone worked faster, but because the wasted year never happens. That is the whole of what I teach.
The guarantee
That holds as long as you hold up your end:
No clause about specific journals. No deadline you can fail.
A physician's account
Hospice and palliative medicine physician, six years in practice. Published in a peer-reviewed journal in her specialty. She had a baby partway through.
Evidence
Named authors. Real journals. Most link straight to the paper.















What you get
Asked and answered
It depends on you, your data and your reviewers. Clinicians who put in five to ten hours a week move fastest, and some have a first draft inside three months. Peer review then takes as long as it takes, and revisions are normal rather than a sign something went wrong. I do not put a date on acceptance, because that date is not mine to set.
No, and many of the people listed above started there. What you need is a question worth asking, access to data or a literature you can work with, and consistent weekly hours. You do not need a methods background. That is the part I teach.
Sometimes, and only where the contribution meets authorship criteria. On some projects a mentor contributes substantively to design, analysis or drafting and is named accordingly. On others they do not and are not. We agree this openly at the roadmap session rather than at the end.
Yes. Study design, data collection and analysis, with support for R, Stata and SPSS.
That is what the guarantee is for. If you are still putting in the hours, I am still working with you, past the three months, at no extra cost.
Apply
The next step is a thirty-minute strategy call. We use it to find the single biggest thing slowing your research down, and to build a plan for your next publication. I work with clinicians who can commit five to ten hours a week over three months.
Apply to work with me