Are you a founder of a healthcare AI startup? You might feel like you’re living a double life of pitching your vision to venture capitalists (VCs) by day and polishing a manuscript for a medical journal by night. While the audiences differ (investors vs. peer reviewers), the experiences have more in common than you’d think.

In this light-hearted yet informative comparison, we explore how pitching to top VCs stacks up against submitting a medical AI paper to a top-tier journal. Both journeys can be equally nerve-wracking, require a strong support network, and sometimes leave you wondering if rejection is just “peer review” by another name.

Whether you’re walking into a Sand Hill Road boardroom or submitting to Nature Medicine, the first thing under scrutiny is who you are and who’s on your team. Venture investors notoriously bet on people: 

They will dissect your team’s track record, domain expertise, and chemistry. Got a healthcare AI startup with no clinicians on board? Expect some raised eyebrows and “team gap” questions.

Academic gatekeepers are just as concerned with pedigree. Editors will note the author list—your degrees, institutions, and past publications—almost as closely as your abstract.

Known researchers and top universities often get more attention, a phenomenon wryly dubbed “letterhead bias.” While quality should speak for itself, having a respected professor or a multi-disciplinary team (AI experts and physicians) on the manuscript can quietly boost your odds.

💡In both worlds, assembling a well-rounded team—be it co-founders or co-authors—is step one in passing the sniff test.

The harsh reality is that in both VC pitching and academic publishing, most proposals get rejected at first glance. VCs invest in less than 2% of the startups that seek funding, and about 80% of applications are rejected out of hand, often within a 10-second read of your deck. If your pitch doesn’t immediately catch their eye (or has obvious flaws), it’s swiftly dismissed.

Top-tier journals work the same way. The dreaded desk rejection happens before your paper even reaches peer reviewers. For example, Nature rejects about 60% of submissions without review, and The New England Journal of Medicine accepts under 5% of research papers. Common reasons include:

Whether it’s a VC saying “not a fit” or an editor giving you a curt decline, both systems are designed for fast triage. If you’ve ever gotten a one-line rejection from an investor or an editor, rest assured, you’re in plentiful company.

There’s pitching…and then there’s being invited. Every founder dreams of the scenario where an investor calls you because word of your amazing startup got out. When a VC is already intrigued (and perhaps afraid of missing out on a hot deal), the power dynamic shifts in your favor.

Similarly, in academia, there’s nothing like an editor reaching out to say:

It’s rare, but when it happens, your odds improve significantly. An editor excited about your work is less likely to desk-reject and may even help shape the manuscript for success.

In both worlds, being sought out signals that your work is timely and on-trend. Of course, reaching that enviable position usually requires slogging through many pitches and submissions first. But once the momentum tips, the dance becomes mutual.

Stay tuned for Part 2 next week: 

HealthUnity is a diverse collective of AI experts, researchers, strategists, healthcare professionals, and nonprofit leaders dedicated to breaking silos in healthcare. We drive innovation to improve health outcomes and enhance lives globally through open research, generative AI, and data-driven collaboration. Want to stay at the forefront of AI in healthcare? Follow HealthUnity on LinkedIn and join the discussion!

Want to learn more about the role of AI in healthcare? Subscribe to the HealthPulse newsletter at GenAI Works.

🚀 Boost your business with us—advertise where 10M+ AI leaders engage

🌟 Sign up for the first AI Hub in the world.

📲 Our Socials