You do not watch research being done. You are taught the method first, then you execute it on a live project in a cohort of four to six, with a mentor correcting every step from your first PubMed search to your final journal submission.
Three cohorts a month · Four to six people in each · USD 499
Each one teaches a distinct part of academic writing. Together they give you a publication record that reads like someone who knows what they are doing, because by then you will.
You pick a recently published paper, find the flaw in it, and argue it in print. This is the fastest route to a citable line on your CV, and it teaches you to read a paper like a reviewer instead of a student.
A structured assessment of a study's methods and conclusions. You learn to name exactly what is wrong with a design and why it matters clinically. That is the skill that separates people who cite papers from people who evaluate them.
The full method: PRISMA, protocol registration, screening, extraction, risk of bias, and a pooled analysis you run yourself. Submitted to a PubMed-indexed journal. This sits at the top of the evidence hierarchy.
Most research mentorship hands you a slide deck and a reading list. Some hand you a finished manuscript with your name buried in the author list. This does neither.
You are taught the method, then you apply it on a live project while a mentor corrects your work step by step. Every author on every paper meets ICMJE criteria, because the entire point is that you did the work and can prove it.
That matters more than it used to. Program directors have learned to spot a portfolio that was bought, and a candidate who cannot discuss their own methods in an interview is worse off than a candidate with no publications at all. The thing that survives scrutiny is being able to explain what you did and why.
After 30 days you can run a meta-analysis end to end on your own, and write an LTE, a case report and a narrative review without help.
You stay in your group after the program ends and keep publishing with us. Most people's second and third papers come from here.
Five days of teaching, then you build. Nothing here is theory you will never use.
Six structured sessions: orientation to research, the Letter to the Editor, critical appraisal, and three full sessions on systematic review and meta-analysis including a complete software walkthrough. Taught from zero, with no prior research background assumed.
You are placed in a cohort of four to six people who just learned the method alongside you, with a mentor attached to the group. You perform every step yourself: topic refinement, literature search, screening, data extraction, statistical analysis, manuscript writing. Every step is checked and corrected. In parallel, you independently write and submit your Letter to the Editor.
Journal selection, formatting to the target's requirements, cover letters, and submission. You learn how to read a rejection, how to write a response to reviewers, and what to do when a paper comes back with major revisions, because it will.
Every session maps directly onto something you submit. Nothing here is theory you will never use.
Current methodology and the tools people actually use now, including AI-assisted workflows with Claude and similar systems: screening, extraction, drafting and pressure-testing your own arguments. Used properly and disclosed properly, so your methods survive a reviewer reading them.
A paper is not only a line on a CV. It is the most reliable reason a stranger will reply to you. How to use your own work to open a conversation with a PI, get onto the next project, earn a letter that is written by someone who has actually seen you work, and build a network that outlasts the program.
Named authors, real journals, open DOIs. Click any of them.
Research Fellow, Consentic
Author of 78+ peer-reviewed publications, primarily first-author systematic reviews, meta-analyses and national mortality analyses in cardiovascular medicine. Has run 150+ research workshops and mentors students building academic portfolios from zero.
Research Asistant at CCSEO in Canada
Daniel supervises and mentors the Canadian Cohorts. Author of many peer-reviewed publications, primarly in Oncology and Cancer including orginal research, systematic reviews and retrospective studies.
One cohort fee. Covers all six teaching sessions, the live meta-analysis project, mentor review of every step, and submission support for all three manuscripts.
Three cohorts run each month, four to six people in each. Small groups are the point, not a constraint: a meta-analysis needs independent duplicate reviewers by design, and work only gets corrected properly when the mentor can see all of it.
A seat is confirmed only after payment. An application without a payment receipt does not reserve a place in the cohort.
No, and be suspicious of anyone who says otherwise. Acceptance is decided by editors and reviewers neither of us controls, and a first paper is frequently rejected once before it lands. What is promised is that three manuscripts are written, finished and submitted within 30 days, and that you are supported through the revisions afterwards.
No. It is the normal starting position and everything is taught from zero, beginning with your first PubMed search. What cannot be supplied for you is the weekly time and the willingness to have your drafts marked up.
Only where the contribution genuinely meets ICMJE authorship criteria, and it is agreed openly at the start rather than negotiated at the end. Nobody is added to a paper for administrative reasons, and nobody buys a slot.
Yes. You work in a small group with a mentor, the way real meta-analyses are done, because screening and extraction require independent duplicate reviewers by design. Author order is set by contribution and agreed in writing at the start. If you do the work of a first author, you are the first author.
Three cohorts run every month, so you are rarely waiting more than a couple of weeks. Each one is four to six people. That size is deliberate: it is small enough that your mentor reads everything you produce, and large enough to run screening and extraction with independent reviewers, which is how a meta-analysis is supposed to be done.
Consistency matters more than volume. Protected hours every week beat a cleared weekend once a month. If a run of exams or nights makes a week impossible, tell your mentor and the plan is adjusted rather than quietly abandoned.
Yes. The method is identical wherever you train, and the sessions are scheduled to work across North American time zones. The deliverable is the same thing residency applications reward everywhere: a defensible first-author publication record you can discuss in an interview.
You stay in your group and keep publishing with the team. You also keep the method, which is the part that matters: you will be able to run the next one without paying anybody.
It is a scope problem and a supervision problem, and both are fixable in a month. Apply, and tell us what is actually blocking you.
Apply for the next cohortTwo minutes · Every application gets a reply · Questions: [[EMAIL]]