DarioHealth, a digital health company serving employers and health plans across chronic and behavioral health, announced in January 2026 that it had surpassed 100 scientific studies, including peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed conference research, citing that evidence base as foundational to its credibility with employers and health plans. That’s the evidence position mid-market and early-stage companies now compete against, and building a strong evidence base doesn’t require Dario’s headcount. It requires a strategy for the data already sitting inside your product. 

A publication strategy is really just one piece of the broader science strategy question every early-stage health company eventually has to answer. If you haven’t worked through that yet, this article breaks down what a science strategy actually looks like and why it matters before Series A.

Why Do Founders Think They Need a Research Team to Publish?

The assumption comes from picturing a clinical trial as the only path to a publication: an Institutional Review Board (IRB), which provides ethical oversight for research involving people or their data, a control group, a year of data collection, a biostatistician. That path exists, and it’s the right one for some products and some claims. But it isn’t the only path, and treating it as the only one is what pushes publication onto the “someday” list indefinitely.

The more accessible path starts with a smaller question: what data does the company already have that a journal would find credible? Usage patterns, a feasibility signal, a retrospective comparison, or a descriptive account of how a specific population engaged with a specific feature can all clear that bar. Recognizing which of those you already have, and structuring it correctly for review, is work a fractional science team can take on without adding headcount.

What Data Do You Already Have That Could Support a Publication?

The data that is already sitting in a company’s own systems is usually more publication-ready than it looks, even if the product has been live for only a few months. 

The following are common building blocks for a first publication:

• Feasibility and usability data, showing whether a specific population could use the product as intended
• Retrospective analyses of existing usage or outcomes data, run on data collected during normal operations rather than a dedicated study
• Descriptive studies of how a defined population engages with the product: who used it, how often, and for what
• Real-world outcomes signals tied to a specific, measurable claim
• Survey or assessment data capturing satisfaction, perceived value, barriers, preferences, symptoms, or other user-reported insights

In total, we have helped companies ranging from Pre-Series to Series D publish more than 65 papers. We helped one client turn existing operational data into four publications in three months, without waiting on a new study to be designed, approved, and run. For another client, we helped build a rapid evidence base of 17+ publications in 24 months, alongside stronger funding readiness and external credibility. The data existed already. What was missing was the plan to structure it, position it, and get it in front of the right editors. 

What’s the Difference Between Running a New Study and Publishing From Existing Data?

A new study means designing a protocol, determining the appropriate research oversight, recruiting a defined sample, and collecting new data according to a study plan, sometimes for months. That’s the right investment when a company needs to show that its product caused a specific outcome and can’t support that claim in any other way.

Publishing from existing data works differently. A retrospective analysis looks back at data your product has already collected, while a descriptive study or feasibility write-up can use existing information to describe who used the product, how they used it, or what early signals emerged. The design is simpler because the data collection already happened, whether or not anyone called it research at the time. What matters is that the population was defined, the outcome or usage pattern was captured, and the analysis is transparent about the design’s limits. Retrospective research may still require IRB approval or exemption, along with appropriate privacy and research oversight.

Founders who wait for the perfect prospective study before publishing anything leave usable evidence on the table for months, sometimes years, longer than necessary. And they spend money for no reason. A well-framed retrospective paper moving toward publication can start building credibility while a larger prospective study is being conducted.

Which Journals Should You Target by Vertical?

Not every peer-reviewed journal fits every company or every dataset, and targeting the wrong one wastes months in review. The right fit depends on the research question, study design, audience, and strength of the evidence. A few examples across different levels of rigor and scope include:

• JMIR Formative Research: designed for formative, feasibility, pilot, and early-stage research, making it a natural home for the kind of preliminary evidence many early-stage health companies have.
• Frontiers in Digital Health: a broad digital health journal spanning areas including AI, digital mental health, implementation, human factors, and behavior change.
• Digital Health (SAGE): a broad interdisciplinary journal covering digital health research across clinical care, health and wellbeing, technology, and the patient experience.
• npj Digital Medicine: focused on digital medicine, including the clinical application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies, virtual healthcare, AI, and informatics.
• JAMA Network Open: a higher bar and a different audience, best suited for high-quality research with broader clinical, health services, outcomes, or population-health relevance.

Across our client portfolio, we’ve placed research in journals across the JMIR family, Frontiers in Digital Health, JAMA Network Open, and Digital Health (SAGE), a fair reflection of the range accessible to a digital health company with solid real-world data, not necessarily a research budget to match.

Budget matters here too. Many JMIR-family journals charge article processing fees of roughly $2,000 to more than $3,000, depending on the journal, payable only if the paper is accepted, not at submission. That’s a line item, not a grant application.

How Should You Time Publications Around Fundraising and Sales Cycles?

Publication timelines are longer than most founders assume, and shorter than most founders fear. JMIR reports an average decision time of about two months for manuscripts sent out for peer review, though the full timeline varies depending on revisions and editorial processing. A paid fast-track option exists at most JMIR journals, guaranteeing an editorial decision within 20 business days and publication within four weeks of acceptance.

That means companies should plan several months ahead rather than waiting until a business milestone is already approaching. If a founder wants a publication in hand before a Series A raise, an enterprise renewal conversation, or a conference like BHT or HLTH, the submission needs to happen two to three quarters ahead of that moment, not the month before. 

What you choose to publish first should also reflect the milestone you are working toward. Not all investors define “evidence” the same way, and knowing what investors actually mean by evidence in digital health fundraising can help you decide which publication to prioritize first.

Publication compounds. Done well, each paper should support the next one: an investor conversation, a sales cycle, a payer or partnership conversation. Treating it as a one-time proof point instead of an ongoing asset is the more expensive mistake.

What Does a Fractional Science Team Actually Do to Support Publication Strategy?

A fractional science team’s job on publication strategy comes down to five things: identifying which existing datasets are already publication-ready, defining the specific question the paper should answer, structuring the manuscript and analysis, selecting the right target journal based on data maturity, timeline, and cost, and managing the submission and reviewer-response process from start to finish.

What it doesn’t require is a full-time research scientist on payroll, an academic affiliation, a dedicated IRB office, or years of runway before the first paper gets submitted. At Fit Minded, we’ve supported more than 40 published papers across our client portfolio, plus additional work in press, in review, and in preparation. Most of that work started with data a company already had, and a decision about which piece of it belonged in front of an editor next.

Before you scope a new study, pull the last twelve months of usage data and ask what a retrospective analysis of it would actually show. For most companies, that’s the faster, cheaper path to a first submission, and the dataset is already sitting in a system you have access to today.

Building a publication strategy for your digital health company? Book a discovery call to find out which of your existing datasets are already publication-ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a university partnership to publish peer-reviewed research?

No. A university affiliation can help with certain study designs, but it isn’t required to publish. Retrospective analyses, feasibility studies, and descriptive research can be conducted and published using a company’s own data and a fractional science team.

Can I publish from a small pilot or existing operational data?

Yes. Feasibility studies, descriptive studies, and retrospective analyses are all standard, peer-reviewed designs, and they’re the fastest path to a first publication for most early- and mid-stage health companies.

How much does it cost to publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

Most JMIR-family journals charge an article processing fee of roughly $2,000 to more than $3,000, depending on the journal, payable only upon acceptance, which most companies can plan for as a straightforward budget line. Costs vary by journal, and fee waivers or institutional discounts are sometimes available.

How long does it take to get a paper published?

JMIR reports an average of about two months for a peer-review decision for manuscripts sent out for review, but total publication timelines vary. A paid fast-track option can shorten that to about 20 business days for a decision and four weeks to publication after acceptance.

What’s the difference between a publication strategy and just deciding to run a study?

A study is one output. A publication strategy decides which data is worth publishing, in what order, which journal fits each piece, and how the timeline lines up with fundraising, sales, and conference cycles, so publishing becomes a repeatable asset instead of a one-off scramble.