Who can contribute
Anyone with genuine expertise in organ donation. That includes, and is not limited to:
- Clinicians who manage donors, perform procurement, or transplant organs
- Procurement coordinators, donation specialists, and ICU teams
- Researchers in organ donation policy, ethics, or epidemiology
- Country-registry staff and data analysts working with donation figures
- Policy makers and advocates working on consent law and donation systems
- Donor families willing to share their experience
- Journalists, students, and interested members of the public with something thoughtful to add
Affiliation, title, and institution are not prerequisites. The standard is the work, not the credential.
What we publish
The project lives across three sites, each with its own scope. Pick the site that fits the kind of contribution you have in mind — or write to us and we will help route it.
Opinion, commentary, news, contributor essays
The community hub. Reflective pieces, position statements, news commentary, founder notes, and contributor essays on any aspect of organ donation.
Data, evidence reviews, country dashboards
Numerical work. Donation rates, DCD/DBD splits, consent system comparisons, country profiles, registry-derived analyses.
Clinical practice, protocols, comparative reviews
Clinical work. Donor management, NRP, ex-vivo perfusion, observation periods, family communication, post-transplant outcomes, and worldwide evidence-based clinical practice.
How it works
We do not run a formal submission portal. The process is a conversation:
- Email us with a short pitch — one or two paragraphs on what you want to write and which site you think it belongs on.
- We respond with a yes, a route, or a question about scope.
- You write. Drafts can be a Word document, a Google doc, an HTML page, or whatever fits. We handle the conversion to the brand-canonical layout. You review, we publish.
- Every reference cited has to be independently verified against its primary source and is the responsibility of the author. Editorial decisions, attributions, and factual claims may be reviewed by the Collaborative before publication.
- Your piece goes up on the right site with your name and bio and the canonical disclosure.
What we ask
- Open access by default. Pieces published here are free to read. If possible, try to use as many open-access references as possible.
- Verifiable claims. Cite primary sources where you can — registries, peer-reviewed publications, government data. Expert opinion is welcome and clearly labeled as such.
- No undisclosed conflicts. Industry funding, institutional advocacy positions, and material commercial interests should be declared up front so readers can weigh them.
- Editorial latitude. We may suggest edits for clarity, length, or fit, or even reject a piece.
Use of AI
The Collaborative uses generative AI tools transparently as part of the research process — for drafting, restructuring, and consistency checking. Every piece carries the canonical disclosure paragraph at the bottom: source materials are limited to open-access publications, registry data, and other publicly available sources; every reference is independently reviewed; all editorial decisions remain the Collaborative’s responsibility.
If you contribute, your piece will carry the same disclosure. You are welcome to use AI in your own drafting; you are also welcome not to. Either way, the verification standard is the same.
Get in touch
The simplest way to start is to email a short pitch. We read every message.
You are welcome in it.