N-of-1Rχiv

Submit a study

You don't need to be a scientist. If you ran a careful experiment on yourself and you're willing to share it honestly, it belongs here. Here's how.

A quick note on safety: only publish experiments you've actually done, share your own data (not other people's), and never present a study as medical advice.
  1. 1

    Make sure you have the basics

    A good n-of-1 write-up answers three questions: what one thing did you change, what did you measure, and what happened over time. If you compared on-periods to off-periods, even better — say so.

  2. 2

    Copy the template

    We write studies in Markdown — plain text with simple formatting. The block at the top (between the --- lines) is your structured summary; everything below it is your story. Don't worry about getting the formatting perfect — we'll help tidy it.

    study.md
    ---
title: "Does magnesium glycinate reduce my migraine days?"
authors:
  - "Your Name"
summary: >
  A plain-language summary anyone can understand in 30 seconds. What did you
  test, for how long, and what did you find?
published: "2026-06-24"

# --- Study at a glance ---
condition: "Migraine frequency"
intervention: "Magnesium glycinate 400 mg nightly"
design: "Single-subject ABAB (on / off / on / off)"
duration: "12 weeks"
blinding: "Unblinded"
outcomes:
  - "Migraine days per week (headache diary)"
  - "Average pain (0–10) on migraine days"

tags:
  - "migraine"
  - "supplements"
status: "preprint"
license: "CC BY 4.0"
# dataUrl: "https://..."   # optional link to your raw data
---

## Background
Why did you run this experiment? What were you hoping to find out?

## Method
What exactly did you do? Be specific: dose, timing, how long each phase lasted,
and how you measured your outcomes.

## Results
What happened? Add a table or paste your numbers. You can use Markdown tables:

| Phase | Weeks | Migraine days/week |
| ----- | ----- | ------------------ |
| A (off) | 1–3 | 3.0 |
| B (on)  | 4–6 | 1.5 |

Graphs help a lot. Attach an image and reference it by filename:

![Short description of the graph for screen readers](fig1.png)
*Figure 1. A one-line caption explaining what the reader is looking at.*

## Discussion
What do you make of it? What might explain the result? What are the
limitations (placebo, other changes in your life, measurement error)?

## Conclusion
Your honest takeaway — including "I'm not sure" or "it didn't work" if that's
the truth.
  3. 3

    Fill it in, in plain language

    Replace the example text with your own. Write the way you'd explain it to a friend. Null results and “it didn't work” are genuinely valuable here — please include them.

  4. 4

    Send it to us

    For now, submissions are reviewed by a human before going live (this keeps quality high while we're small). Email your filled-in template and we'll get it posted, usually within a few days, with its permanent nof1rxiv ID.

    Attaching graphs or images? Just attach the image files (PNG, JPG, or SVG) to your email and reference each one by filename in your write-up — for example ![description](fig1.png). We'll place them in your study's figure folder when we post it. Please use plots of your own data, and give every image a short description so screen-reader users can follow along.

    Email your submission →

    Button not working? Email us directly atsubmissions@nof1rxiv.org

What we check before publishing

We can't independently verify a personal experiment, and we don't pretend to. What we can do is screen out the things that make a write-up untrustworthy or unsafe. A submission needs to clear all of these:

  • It really happened, to you

    You actually ran this experiment on yourself (or a consenting subject who agreed to publication). No invented studies, no hypotheticals dressed up as results.

  • A real, reachable author

    We need a name to attribute the work to and a working email to correspond with. Pseudonyms are okay if you tell us, but anonymous-and-unreachable submissions aren't accepted.

  • Method matches results

    The design you describe can actually produce the numbers you report — phases, durations, and sample counts add up, and the data isn't suspiciously clean or internally contradictory.

  • Outcomes defined before conclusions

    You measured something specific and consistent, rather than picking the best-looking number after the fact.

  • Honest about limitations

    You name the obvious confounders and uncertainties. A study that claims certainty from one noisy n-of-1 gets sent back.

  • Safe and ethical

    No dangerous protocols presented as advice, no other people's identifiable data, and no claims that something cures or treats disease.

  • Shareable evidence, where possible

    Raw data, a photo of your log, or a clear protocol strengthens a submission a lot. It's not mandatory, but unsupported extraordinary claims won't be published.

Published studies are clearly marked as self-reported preprints — not peer reviewed and not verified. If we later find a study was fabricated, we withdraw it and note why. Honest null results, by contrast, are always welcome.