Bylined Article Placement Under a Named Expert

We place four to eight contributed articles in a quarter, not forty. The number of publications in medtech and regulated finance that accept outside contributions and employ an editor willing to reject them is small, and the outlets that accept everything are worth nothing to appear in. This is an authorship programme: a named person from your organisation writing under their own byline, with everything that follows from that. The byline is the constraint: Every article goes out under a real, identifiable expert at your company whose credential can be checked. A PWZ number for a Polish physician, a CFA charter, an entry in the KNF register, a named role on your own site with a history behind it. The publications worth appearing in do check. We will not ghostwrite under a doctor's name without that doctor reading, editing and approving the piece, and we will not invent a persona for the purpose. If nobody at your organisation is willing to put their name on an argument, this is the wrong engagement and we will say so on the first call rather than the fourth. Publication vetting: We look for a masthead, a submissions process that produces rejections, and readership evidence beyond the contributed section. We check whether contributed articles are visibly the bulk of the site's output, and where they are we decline it regardless of its metrics. We read the outbound link pattern of the last twenty published pieces. Around two in three candidate outlets fail one of these tests, which is why the placement count is what it is. The article: A specific argument with something at stake. A position on a treatment pathway. A reading of incoming regulation before the market has settled on one. A method your team uses that the field does not. We interview your expert for an hour, draft, and send it back for correction, which they do properly because their name is on it. Editors accept these because they are the sort of piece they cannot commission cheaply, not because we know somebody. Disclosure and attribution: Where a publication charges anything at all, the link carries a sponsored attribute and the piece is marked according to that publication's own policy. This is not negotiable and it is settled before we start. In practice it means some placements will pass no ranking value, and we tell you which ones before the invoice, because being read by the right eight hundred people is sometimes the reason to run a piece anyway. What we refuse: Placement marketplaces and inventory lists. Anything priced by domain-rating band. Anchor text dictated by a spreadsheet, since the link belongs wherever the argument needs a citation, which is usually a methodology or reference page rather than a commercial one. Articles about your product, because publications that accept those are not publications we use. And any placement in a Polish outlet promoting a prescription medicine to a general audience, which is prohibited however the article is framed. Reporting: Per placement: the publication, the editor, the byline, the link target and its attribute, referral traffic at thirty and ninety days, and whether the piece was still live at ninety days. Contributed articles are quietly deleted in redesigns more often than anyone in this market admits, and we check rather than assume. Who this is not for: Teams who need volume. If your plan calls for twenty placements a month, another practice will serve you and you should not pay our rates for a smaller number. Companies whose experts cannot commit an hour per article, because the interview is the only part that cannot be substituted. And anyone who wants the link without the article, since the article is the only part of this that survives a change in editorial policy.