Medical Writer

$90–150/hrrate as listed

Author clinical study report sections and build the synthetic trial datasets, prompts, golden outputs, and rubrics used to score AI agents attempting the same work. Requires hands-on pre-market (Phase 1–3) CSR authorship experience and 20–25 hours a week minimum.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

This is two interlocking workflows rather than one. On the data side, you generate and validate synthetic clinical trial datasets that behave like real Phase 1–3 material — plausible disposition tables, adverse event patterns, protocol deviations, efficacy endpoints that hold together across a document. On the authorship side, you write full CSR sections to submission standard, then convert that same task into an evaluation artifact: a prompt an AI agent can attempt, a golden output that represents what good looks like, and a rubric granular enough that two reviewers scoring the same agent response land in the same place.

The long-horizon part is the hard part. These are not paragraph-level tasks. You are expected to be comfortable holding a document-length argument in your head — ICH E3 structure, cross-references between the safety narrative and the summary tables, consistency between the statistical section and the discussion — and to design evaluations that catch an agent quietly losing that thread on page nine.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable pre-market experience. Mercor's screen probes for specifics: which phase, which therapeutic area, which sections you personally drafted versus reviewed, whether you worked from a SAP and TFL shells.
ICH E3 fluency under follow-up. Expect questions that go a layer deeper than the section list — what belongs in 12.2 versus a narrative appendix, how you handle a discontinuation that could be read two ways.
Rubric design judgment. Whether you can decompose "this CSR section is good" into criteria that are observable, weighted sensibly, and resistant to a fluent-but-wrong answer scoring well.
Honest availability. 20–25 hours weekly is the floor, not an aspiration. Under-delivery here is the most common reason contributors are cycled off.

Logistics

Fully remote, US or Canada only. Work is largely asynchronous with periodic calibration sessions where reviewers align on rubric application. Observed pay for this listing runs $90–150/hr, positioned by experience depth and phase-specific background; rates are as observed on the platform and not guaranteed. Engagements are typically ongoing rather than fixed-term, with volume tied to your stated weekly hours.

What they look for

Pre-market (Phase 1–3) CSR authorship, sections drafted end to end
ICH E3 structure and regulatory writing conventions
Clinical trial data literacy — TFLs, SAPs, disposition and safety datasets
Rubric and golden-output design for evaluating model responses
PhD or equivalent in a life sciences / clinical discipline
Long-horizon, full-document writing discipline

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 10 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether your pre-market experience is first-hand authorship or adjacent involvement such as review, publication writing, or post-marketing work.
A strong answer: A specific study — indication, phase, roughly how many subjects — with named sections you owned (e.g. Section 10 disposition, Section 12 safety), the source documents you worked from, and the review chain above you.
Where people lose it: Describing programme-level involvement without ever saying which words on the page were yours; the screen is built to distinguish authorship from oversight, and vagueness here reads as the latter.