Yes, you can publish a medical review as an independent author if you follow journal rules, ethics, and accepted reporting standards.
Plenty of clinicians, graduates between posts, and self-funded researchers publish reviews without a formal appointment. The path is open, but it isn’t casual. You’ll need a tight question, transparent methods, and a clean submission package. This guide walks you through what “solo” really means, where you can send your work, and the steps that lift a manuscript from decent to publishable.
Publishing A Medical Review Paper Solo: What It Takes
Publishing on your own means you act as the organizer, writer, and corresponding author. You may still collaborate, but you don’t need a university contract to submit. Editors care about rigor and clarity, not job titles. Your plan should cover review type, method, journal fit, and ethics disclosures. The earlier you decide those, the smoother the submission.
Quick Paths To Share Your Work
There are multiple outlets with different speed, visibility, and cost profiles. Pick the one that matches your goal: rapid visibility, formal peer review, or both.
| Route | Peer Review? | Typical Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Preprint Server (e.g., medRxiv) | Screened, not peer reviewed | $0 |
| Subscription Journal | Yes | $0 publication fee; paywalled |
| Open-Access Journal (Gold OA) | Yes | Article Processing Charge common |
| Society Journal Special Issue | Yes | Varies; often discounted |
| Conference Proceedings | Yes, lighter than journals | Registration fee typical |
Who Can Be An Author Without An Affiliation
Journals accept manuscripts from independent researchers. Many forms list “Affiliation,” but a personal or independent label is fine. What matters is author responsibility. Publish only if you meet accepted authorship thresholds and you can answer technical questions about the work after publication.
Authorship Criteria In Plain Terms
Medical journals commonly follow the ICMJE authorship criteria. In practice, that means you:
- Make a substantial intellectual contribution to the idea, data collection, or interpretation.
- Draft the work or make meaningful revisions.
- Approve the final version.
- Agree to be accountable for the content.
As a solo author, you meet all four by definition. If you invite co-authors, confirm who did what and disclose contributions in the manuscript.
Pick The Right Review Type
Choose a format that fits your question and the evidence base. Editors expect the label to match the method. The three most common formats are below.
Narrative Review
A narrative review synthesizes a topic with selective coverage. It’s suitable for mechanism overviews, clinical pearls, or fast-moving areas where formal pooling is premature. You still need a declared search approach, balanced coverage, and a clear limitation statement.
Scoping Review
A scoping review maps the landscape of evidence: what types of studies exist, how outcomes are measured, and where gaps sit. It focuses on breadth rather than effect sizes. Pre-registration helps, and a visual chart of domains or outcomes improves readability.
Systematic Review (With Or Without Meta-Analysis)
A systematic review follows a pre-specified protocol, comprehensive search, and duplicate screening. If studies are comparable, you may pool results. Reporting should follow the PRISMA 2020 checklist, including flow diagram and itemized methods. Even solo authors can run a credible process by using tools for screening and data extraction and by adding an external verifier for a subset of decisions.
Build A Solo-Friendly Workflow
You can complete each step alone with a little tooling. Here’s a lean plan that keeps quality high while respecting your bandwidth.
1) Frame A Sharp Question
Use PICO or a close variant: population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcomes. A focused question narrows the database list, reduces screening load, and makes the final message clearer.
2) Draft A Simple Protocol
Write a short protocol that lists databases, search strings, inclusion rules, outcomes, and synthesis plan. For systematic or scoping work, register the protocol on a public registry when available. Even a narrative review benefits from a dated protocol saved with your files.
3) Search Broadly, Then Deduplicate
Start with MEDLINE and Embase; add CINAHL, CENTRAL, or subject-specific databases as needed. Export to a citation manager and remove duplicates before screening. Save every query string so your search is reproducible.
4) Screen In Two Passes
First pass on titles/abstracts using your inclusion rules. Second pass on full texts. Keep a log of reasons for exclusion. Even if you work alone, check a subset later with fresh eyes to reduce bias.
5) Extract Data With A Template
Build a spreadsheet with study ID, population, design, sample size, outcomes, and quality signals. Pre-fill controlled terms to avoid drift. If you plan to pool results, note effect measures and units up front.
6) Synthesize With Transparency
If you’re not pooling, group studies by design or outcome and summarize patterns. If you are pooling, justify model choice and assess heterogeneity. Present clear caveats and sensitivity checks where feasible.
7) Write To Journal Style
Most outlets ask for IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). For reviews, Methods maps to search, screening, extraction, bias assessment, and synthesis. Results include the PRISMA diagram for systematic work and tables that help readers scan findings fast.
Ethics, Permissions, And IRB Questions
Literature reviews that do not involve new interaction with people usually do not need IRB oversight. If you analyze de-identified, publicly available reports only, you’re outside human-subjects review in many settings. If you plan to include contact with authors for missing data or to synthesize unpublished patient-level information, check local rules before you start. Disclose funding, conflicts, and prior posting (such as a preprint) in your cover letter and manuscript.
Where To Submit For The Best Fit
Target journals that publish reviews in your niche and match their scope statements. Read three recent review articles from your shortlist and mirror structure, reference density, and figure style. If time to visibility matters, post a preprint, then submit to a peer-reviewed outlet that welcomes preprinted work. Many journals permit this and even allow one-click transfer from servers that host medical research.
Signal Quality With Reporting Standards
Citing your adherence to PRISMA in the cover letter helps editors see your process at a glance. Link the checklist in your submission files and include the flow diagram during initial submission. For narrative or scoping formats, state your method with the same clarity even if a formal checklist isn’t required.
Submission Checklist For Independent Authors
| Item | Why It Matters | Quick Tip |
|---|---|---|
| Defined Question | Sets scope and database plan | Write a one-sentence PICO |
| Protocol File | Shows method discipline | Save as PDF; date it |
| Search Log | Enables replication | Archive exact strings |
| Screening Log | Explains exclusions | Keep a reason code list |
| Data Extraction Sheet | Prevents drift and errors | Lock variable names early |
| Bias Assessment | Frames evidence quality | Pick a tool per study type |
| Figures And Tables | Improves scan-reading | Include one synthesis table |
| PRISMA Files (If Systematic) | Meets editor expectations | Add checklist and diagram |
| Authorship & Conflicts | Builds trust | State roles and funding |
| Cover Letter | Positions your work | Pitch novelty and utility |
Avoid Predatory Traps
Be wary of journals that email solicitations with flattery, promise instant acceptance, or hide fees until the last step. Check for a clear peer-review policy, visible editorial board, indexing claims you can verify, and transparent fees. If the site obscures who runs it or displays broken links, move on. Your reputation is part of the submission.
Costs, Time, And Realistic Planning
Budget for reference software and, if you choose open access, an APC. Fees range from zero to several thousand dollars depending on the outlet. Many journals offer waivers or discounts for researchers without institutional backing. From first search to acceptance, a solo review can take weeks to many months. Timelines depend on scope, the number of databases, response speed from co-authors if any, and the journal’s queue.
How To Strengthen A One-Author Submission
Show Process Evidence
Append your search strings, upload the checklist, and include a PRISMA diagram for systematic work. Process transparency reduces back-and-forth with editors.
Use Tools That Save Time
Citation managers, screening platforms, and spreadsheet templates are worth the setup. They cut errors and help you document decisions. Even a simple folder convention (01_Protocol, 02_Search, 03_Screening, 04_Data) pays off when a reviewer asks for a detail months later.
Add A Light External Check
If possible, ask a colleague to verify a sample of screening decisions or data points. A short audit improves quality and shows care. Mention the verification in your Methods.
Cover Letter That Lands Well
Keep it tight: one paragraph on the question and why the topic matters to readers, one on the method in one or two lines, one on the key takeaways. State that the work is original, not under consideration elsewhere, and, if applicable, posted as a preprint. Note your adherence to the PRISMA 2020 checklist for systematic work and that you meet the ICMJE authorship criteria.
Common Reasons Reviews Get Rejected
Scope Mismatch
The topic sits outside the journal’s aims or duplicates recent content. Always search the journal site for recent reviews with similar titles before you submit.
Method Gaps
Unclear inclusion rules, missing search dates, or no bias assessment will stall the paper. Editors need to see a documented path from question to result.
Overstatement
Strong claims from low-quality evidence draw pushback. Keep claims aligned with study designs and heterogeneity.
Weak Figures
Dense paragraphs with no visual aids wear readers out. One well-designed table, a forest plot if you pool, and a diagram of the screening flow can lift the whole piece.
Template You Can Adapt
Title And Abstract
- Title: exact topic and design tag (e.g., “Systematic Review”).
- Abstract: structured with background, methods, results, and conclusion line.
Introduction
- One paragraph to set the clinical or research problem.
- One paragraph to state the aim and scope.
Methods
- Protocol and registration.
- Databases, dates, and full search strings.
- Screening and selection (with counts).
- Data items and bias assessment tool.
- Synthesis plan, including any pooling method.
Results
- PRISMA flow diagram (if systematic).
- Study characteristics and main findings.
Discussion
- What the evidence shows and where it’s limited.
- Clinical or research implications.
Back Matter
- Funding and conflicts.
- Data and materials availability.
Bottom Line For Solo Authors
You can publish a medical review without a formal appointment. Editors want rigor, transparency, and a manuscript that helps readers make decisions. Label the review type correctly, follow a documented method, use accepted reporting checklists, and aim your paper where it fits. With that set, “solo” becomes a strength: clear ownership, tidy process, and a fast path from idea to published work.