Find a study to join, or find the people your study needs
Most clinical research stalls for an ordinary reason. A review needs a second screener. A protocol needs a site in another country. A good case needs someone who has written one up before. This is a verified register of clinicians on both sides of that problem.
What people are actually short of
Collaboration is a vague word, so here are the specific gaps. Most requests are one of these six, and each is a small enough ask that a stranger can say yes to it.
Screening and extraction are meant to be done independently by two people. Finding the second one is where reviews stall, more often than any methodological problem.
Small commitment, clear end point, and a real place on the paper.
A protocol is worth little without recruitment. Finding sites outside your own institution, and outside your own country, is slow and mostly done through people you already know.
The highest value need here, and the hardest to fill alone.
An unusual case is worth writing up, and it is easier with someone who has done it before, or who has seen a second case worth pooling.
A sensible first collaboration between people who have not worked together.
A survey is only as good as who answers it. Reaching clinicians in other systems and other countries is the difference between a local snapshot and a paper.
Cheap to offer, and a good way to contribute before committing more.
Plenty of good clinical questions sit unanswered because nobody on the team is comfortable with the analysis, and the department statistician has a queue.
Often the difference between data collected and a paper submitted.
A read from outside the department finds the thing everyone inside it stopped seeing months ago.
An hour of work that can save a resubmission.
How it works
You register
Which side you are on, your specialty, and what you need or can give. Two minutes.
We verify
Your registration number is checked against the issuing body by hand. A few working days.
We introduce
One email, naming the study and the specific contribution expected. You say yes or no.
You take it from there
Authorship, ethics, data handling and funding are yours to agree, as with any collaborator.
Authorship, said plainly
A service that matches strangers to author lists is a paper mill unless it says out loud what it will not do. So: authorship here follows the ICMJE criteria, which most medical journals use. A named author contributed substantially to the design or to acquiring, analyzing or interpreting the data, helped draft or revise the work, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for it. All four.
No money is paid or accepted for a place on an author list. Introductions state the specific contribution expected, so that what someone did is on the record from the first email. If what you want is a credit without the work, this is the wrong register.
Join the register
One form, whichever side you are on. Nothing about you is published, and no details are shared until both sides agree to an introduction.