In 2023, many ATM authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors who have been making immense efforts in their research fields, with a brief interview of their unique perspective and insightful view as authors.
Outstanding Authors (2023)
Tim Hulsen, Philips Research, The Netherlands
Vasileios Kouritas, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, UK
Seogsong Jeong, CHA University School of Medicine, CHA University, Republic of Korea
Samir Dalia, Mercy Hospital, USA
Crystal Dodson, University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA
Fumihiro Yamaguchi, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Japan
Karl C. Golnik, University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Eye Institute, USA
Jungchan Park, Samsung Medical Center, Korea
Tobias Eckle, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, USA
Brad B. Nelson, Colorado State University, USA
Wouter Van Genechten, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Kento Takeshima, University of Toyama, Japan
Patrick M. Honore, UCL Louvain Medical School, Belgium
Pattrapun Wongsripuemtet, Mahidol University, Thailand
Oscar J. Manrique, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA
Riccardo D’Ambrosi, University of Milan, Italy
Elliot Ho, Loma Linda University, USA
Debkumar Chowdhury, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK
Alexandre G. Lellouch, Harvard Medical School, France
Ashley V. Fritz, Mayo Clinic, USA
Joshua Vorstenbosch, McGill University Health Centre Glen Hospital, Canada
Maged Henary, Georgia State University, USA
Kirk W. Beach, University of Washington, USA
Mui Teng Chua, National University Hospital, Singapore
Ralf Weiskirchen, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Germany
Ara A. Salibian, University of California, USA
Max S. Mano, Grupo Oncoclínicas, Brazil
Benjamin Gadomski, Colorado State University, USA
Mimi M. Kim, Thera-Business, Canada
Eric I. Chang, The Plastic Surgery Center, USA
Outstanding Author
Tim Hulsen
Tim Hulsen is a bioinformatician and data scientist with a broad experience in both academia and industry, and he has been working on a wide range of big data projects. He obtained a PhD in bioinformatics in 2007 from a collaboration between the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and the pharmaceutical company N.V. Organon. After two years post-doc at the Radboud University Nijmegen, he moved to Philips Research in 2009, where he worked on big data projects in oncology, such as Prostate Cancer Molecular Medicine (PCMM), Translational Research IT (TraIT), Movember Global Action Plan 3 (GAP3), Liquid Biopsies and Imaging (LIMA) and the ReIMAGINE prostate cancer project. He is currently working at the Data & AI Center of Excellence at Philips Research, helping to share and reuse datasets and algorithms company wide. He is the author of several publications in the area of big data, data management, artificial intelligence, precision medicine and personalized healthcare. Learn more about Tim here or connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Hulsen thinks a good academic paper will somehow help the field move forward. This can happen by presenting new results or innovative ideas, but it can also be achieved by summarizing results from existing papers in a way that has not been done before, opening the door to new insights. The latter has been done in his paper ‘Literature Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedicine’. He further points out that it is important to perform evidence synthesis in a structured manner. He cites the example of using (but not necessarily) the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews. The risk of bias should be limited as much as possible. Evidence presented should be able to be reproduced exactly with the methods presented in the paper. This means that database queries should be listed in the paper, and both data and software should be made available if possible.
Speaking of the importance of a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Hulsen shares that there are similar processes in place at his current company to ensure that research adheres to strict guidelines around ethics and privacy. If these processes would be omitted, there would be a certain risk that the research does not adhere to local (or global) laws. Researchers do not know all these laws by heart, but ethics and privacy experts do, and their expertise is crucial to ensure that all laws are adhered to.
Dr. Hulsen reads a lot of papers to stay up-to-date on the current developments in the field of big data and artificial intelligence. He thinks this is not only useful for his projects, but also for his personal development. To keep track of his knowledge, he takes extensive notes and maintain a list of references in an Endnote library. He further shares, “From there on, it’s not such a big step to a review paper anymore. Other (non-review) papers are often the result of collaborations within subsidy projects. In that case, each partner writes only a part of the paper, and we have brief weekly meetings to discuss progress.”
(By Masaki Lo, Wei-En Fan)
Vasileios Kouritas
Vasileios Kouritas is a consultant and serving as the research lead in Thoracic Surgery at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, United Kingdom. His area of expertise includes all chest pathology with a special interest in minimally invasive approaches via Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery. He is currently leading the department’s robotic surgery program. His PhD thesis involved basic research on pleural physiology. He has published numerous research publications on pleural transportation and physiology as well as their extrapolation to animal models. He has participated in the writing of a relevant chapter in Shield’s Textbook of Thoracic Surgery amongst chapters in other books. He has also presented numerous clinical publications on different aspects of thoracic and thoracic surgery pathology. His research projects include 3D printing, investigation of tissue regeneration and reaction after minimally invasive surgery approaches, research in emphysema and others.
When being asked of the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, Dr. Kouritas says in clinical practice and surgery, time is a key issue. For clinical professionals and surgeons who are very busy in particular, it is extremely challenging to find enough time to allocate to academic writing and maybe, consequently very important clinical experience that could leverage research and improvement in medicine, is not utilized. He thinks mediating important knowledge and findings that originates from intense clinical practice, however, is very important for the benefit of patients and medical community in general. Bias of publishing departments is heavily impacting on clinicians who although would like to allocate time to academic writing, they feel excluded and see their manuscripts being rejected. This leads to disappointment and disheartening feelings that ultimately makes clinicians and surgeons to disengage from the effort to produce manuscripts and research. It is imperative that clinicians and surgeons are supported to devote time to academic writing and journals and the community must ensure that there is no discrimination between institutes and equal chances are provided to all authors.
In order to keep his writing up-to-date and providing new insights to the field of research, Dr. Kouritas would utilize the internet and the published textbook to acquaint himself with the current developments with regards to a subject of interest. This is of utmost importance to complete an up-to-date insight also. Equally, he points out that attending high importance meetings, congresses and courses can help achieve the latest knowledge. He personally finds his institute’s library services useful to start with an initial yet at least up-to-date literature research around topics of his project.
Speaking of reporting guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD or CARE, Dr. Kouritas thinks they have been set by experts in each field and by following the guidelines, it can help ensure manuscripts include all necessary parts and details required for a meaningful and complete conclusion to be reached. Scientists and audience talk the same language by following common guidelines of reporting and this is of utmost importance to achieve maximum benefit from reading academic manuscripts, avoid misconceptions and make conclusions clear and sound. Additionally, he finds the application of guidelines is important for teaching purposes as he can refer to them whenever he needs to teach trainees how to write and what to include in the manuscripts.
Dr. Kouritas shares that writing is one of his favorite hobbies and producing statistical analysis outcomes with models is another one. Academic writing combines both of his hobbies and when he writes, he would enter into a fascinating new world which has endless opportunities. Being able to communicate his findings and ideas with the appropriate audience is liberating and productive. While writing, new ideas and horizons emerge and this leverages his endless quest for research and investigations within his profession. By writing he also feels that he modestly helps the medical world and his specialty to progress. He hopes that his work can envision others to embrace writing in their job roles and stop ignoring its importance to the benefit of the medical community and the patients.
(By Masaki Lo, Wei-En Fan)
Seogsong Jeong
Dr. Seogsong Jeong is a research professor at the Department of Biomedical Informatics, CHA University School of Medicine, South Korea. He received his M.D. from the School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, and received his Ph.D. from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. He currently focuses on the non-invasive diagnosis, treatment, and modifiable risk factors of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Dr. Jeong thinks the most essential element of a good academic paper in epidemiology or clinical study is the one comes with clear definition of the association of exposures with outcomes by controlling potential biases. He explains that prospective randomized controlled trial requires time and effort for the recruitment and follow-up investigation of patients. Instead, researchers are now learning to choose the right database and appropriate methodology. He anticipates that in the near future, all epidemiology or clinical studies may require propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting to report controlled retrospective results. Therefore, he thinks it would be better for all researchers to study how to control potential biases before these methodologies are mandatory. And from Dr. Jeong’s point of view, appropriate evidence for academic writing can come from literature searching; comprehensive and elaborate literature searching often provides useful insights on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis.
Speaking of reporting guidelines, such as STROBE, Dr. Jeong thinks they can provide useful information and act as a reminder for filling the gap of missing information, and that works especially well for junior researchers. However, as he points out, the reporting guidelines are still being updated, indicating that these guidelines may not be an exact answer, but an informative recommendation.
Dr. Jeong in response to the tips on time allocation for academic writing, he says, “Writing papers does not require a lot of time but a good time-allocating habit. I often write papers when I am on a train or before and after lunch. It would not take a long time to see a magnificent effort with the allocation of spare time.”
(By Masaki Lo, Wei-En Fan)
Samir Dalia
Dr. Samir Dalia is a practicing oncologist/hematologist at Mercy Hospital in Joplin, Missouri. He has worked in Mercy Hospital for eight years and currently runs clinical trials in oncology. He takes care of all oncology and hematological patients, and enjoys developing relationships with patients and helping them with their medical issues. Dr. Dalia has interests in lymphomas, leukemias and drug development. He has published articles in all of these areas over the last few years.
In Dr. Dalia’s view, a good academic paper is one that if a person reads it and he/she is able to make a change in day-to-day medical practice. This will usually bring some new evidence to the field of medicine or help develop guidelines on how to work up or treat a certain type of patient. Sometimes it is just highlighting a drug that has not been used in a while or is used in a new purpose. These papers are written in such a way that they grasp the reader's attention without being so long that make someone lose interest.
Speaking of evidence synthesis during the writing process, Dr. Dalia shares that it is very difficult to look at all of the data and analyze them, so it is very important when one starts his/her research with a good question. The first thing he/she should do is to develop a question and make sure that it is succinct enough that it can be answered in a short article. Once he/she has it narrowed, then the article’s search process will be smaller and it will be easier to synthesize and analyze the literature. If the topic is too broad, it will take so much time to analyze and synthesize the literature and one will not have time to write his/her article.
Also, it is very important for any research to have institutional review board (IRB) approval to ensure that patients’ medical records are safe and that this research is conducted appropriately. He adds, “The IRB helps protect the rights of patients and we do not want to do any research that would go against what an IRB would seem appropriate. We also do not want to have biased data. By going through the IRB, we can eliminate the initial bias.”
Being a physician and scientist, Dr. Dalia has a lot of time commitments. He explains, “It sometimes can become hard to write papers. This is why it is very important to have a very good team that can help you with the writing of manuscripts. If you delegate parts of the manuscript to a team, the process of having a finished product is done quicker compares to do it all alone. This is the only way to have a good work-life balance and still publish in academia.”
(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)
Crystal Dodson
Dr. Crissy Dodson is an Associate Professor of Nursing at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, USA. She received her Ph.D. in nursing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She studied in the field of pharmacogenomics as it relates to nursing practice and was a Personalized Medicine Institute trainee. She is currently a member of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. Dr. Dodson's research focuses on the utilization of pharmacogenetic testing within practice. Her most recent research projects involve interdisciplinary collaboration with computer science and digital arts to create a mobile application to provide dosage recommendations based on one's genetic information. The mobile application utilizes evidence-based clinical practice guidelines developed by the Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium. In addition, her focus is on the development of continuing education courses related to pharmacogenetic testing for providers with prescriptive privileges specific to oncology and primary care health.
Academic writing plays a prominent role in science. Dr. Dodson explains that successful dissemination of one's research relies on the proficiency of scholarly writing. To effectively grow the field of science, disseminating the most recent research is critical. Academic writing is the cornerstone of science as it provides a record of the scientific work that has been completed. Therefore, the growth of science directly correlates with the efficacy and clarity of one's academic writing.
Dr. Dodson further shares some critical skill sets of an author which includes the ability to utilize constructive criticism, continuous improvement processing, and time management. These skills allow the author to take beneficial feedback to continuously improve their writing skills. In addition, time management allows the author to set aside dedicated time to focus on writing. Some of the qualities an author should possess is a passion for disseminating one's work to further advance the field of science.
The protection of participants should be the top priority when conducting research. The utilization of institutional review board (IRB) approval helps the researcher take strides in reducing and removing any potential risk and maximizing the participants' benefits. Furthermore, seeking IRB approval also helps ensure that research participants are treated with equity. Dr. Dodson explains, “It is our responsibility as researcher to conduct ethical research to reduce harm to our current participants and reassure future participants that ethical research is one's top priority. If this process were omitted, not only could it cause direct harm to our research participants, but it could ultimately halt the advancement of science if future participants fear research due to this unethical behavior.”
“Academic writing can sometimes feel defeating, but I would encourage everyone to separate one's feelings from their scholarly work. This invisible barrier often allows one to positively view any constructive feedback. This positive outlook helps one focus on the ultimate end goal of advancing the field of science by disseminating the results of their research.” says Dr. Dodson.
(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)
Fumihiro Yamaguchi
Dr. Fumihiro Yamaguchi is an Assistant Professor of Respiratory Medicine at Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Japan. He is also a lecturer in human genetics at Showa University. Originally, his work concentrated on bacterial culture, drug susceptibility testing, molecular biology techniques including, PCR, ligation, sequencing, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for microbial resistant bacteria including mycobacterium. He also worked on gene analysis in lung cancer using cells in curette lavage fluid obtained by bronchoscopy, which showed that it is possible to analyze EGFR, KRAS and P53 mutations using curette lavage fluid collected from lung cancer patients, and that EGFR mutations in conjunction with P53 mutations can accelerate cancer development and lead to the evolution of therapeutic resistance. He is currently working on the relationship between lung cancer pathogenesis and mycobacterial infection as several studies suggest antineoplastic effects were induced by mycobacterial infection. You may visit Dr. Yamaguchi’s department page for more information.
Speaking of the role academic writing plays in science, Dr. Yamaguchi shares that science develops through trials and errors, and what is considered correct at the time may be rewritten later. He believes that the correct knowledge is obtained through repetition, and that the reporting of one's results contributes to the advancement of science, even if similar results have already been reported.
In Dr. Yamaguchi’s view, authors should examine the data as carefully as possible and provide thorough discussions without deviating from the data. Excessive imagination is not necessary for science. It should be considered in the context of the research results obtained. Furthermore, integrity and humility are required from all authors.
Dr. Yamaguchi encourages all the academic writers, “I believe that the accumulation of daily research results, even if they are small, will be useful for the future development of science. For instance, the pathogenesis of a disease can be clarified by a small question in routine practice.”
On the importance of the institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Yamaguchi states that it is mandatory for certain types of research. One should refrain from self-serving plans while the institution becomes responsible for the research through the approval. Otherwise, patients may be adversely affected if IRB approval is not obtained.
(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)
Karl C. Golnik
Dr. Karl Golnik is the Professor and Chairman of the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Eye Institute, USA. He has received the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s Lifetime Achievement award, the North American Neuro-ophthalmology Society’s Merit Award and more than 10 teaching awards throughout his career. He has given more than 1,000 invited neuro-ophthalmology and medical education lectures in more than 70 countries and has over 150 publications in these fields. He is a member of the American Ophthalmological Society and the Academia Ophthalmologica Internationalis, and currently serves as a Board Member and Chair for Education of the Ophthalmology Foundation.
Speaking of the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, Dr. Golnik thinks that just getting started with great ideas for research is the greatest difficulty. Once the topic is identified, then the regulations behind Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval can be onerous. During preparation of a paper, the most important consideration is being concise and clear while keeping tight organization of the material.
Even though academic writing takes a lot of time and effort, Dr. Golnik shares that there are several motivating factors including the desire to develop new ideas and methods to improve patient care. “Of course, if one is in academic medicine, one must produce publications,” says Dr. Golnik.
(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)
Jungchan Park
Dr. Jungchan Park currently serves at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. He is a PhD candidate in Medical Informatics at Ajou University. His research interests lie in the intersection of perioperative medicine, cardiology, and artificial intelligence. Over the past few years, Dr. Park has been focusing on the use of perioperative troponin and myocardial injury to predict and prevent cardiac complications in surgical patients. Recently, he has also been working on the development of a hemodynamic monitoring device using doppler sonography with artificial intelligence. This innovative device has the potential to significantly improve the accuracy and speed of hemodynamic monitoring in a variety of clinical settings. He is excited to continue exploring new applications of AI and machine learning in medicine, with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes and advancing the field of healthcare.
ATM: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Dr. Park: A good academic paper should have a few key elements. Firstly, the title should be clear and captivating, giving readers a sense of what the paper is about while also grabbing their attention. The Abstract should provide a concise summary of the paper, highlighting the main points and key findings. The Introduction should clearly lay out the research question or problem, explaining why it's important and relevant. The Literature Review should be well-researched, demonstrating a good understanding of the existing research in the field and how the current study fills gaps in knowledge. The Methods section should be detailed and transparent, outlining the research design, data collection and analysis methods. The Results should be presented in a clear and organized manner, using tables and figures to aid comprehension. The Discussion section should interpret the findings, relate them to the research question, and discuss their implications for the field. The Conclusion should provide a summary of the main findings and their significance. Finally, the Reference list should be properly formatted and include all sources cited in the paper. Proper formatting is also important, as it helps make the paper more readable and professional-looking. Overall, a good academic paper should be well-organized, well-researched, and make a meaningful contribution to the field.
ATM: What are the qualities an author should possess?
Dr. Park: There are several qualities that an author should possess to produce a good academic paper. Firstly, they should have a deep understanding of the subject matter and be able to conduct rigorous research. This requires strong critical thinking skills, and the ability to analyze data, and draw sound conclusions based on evidence. Additionally, good writing skills are crucial for effectively communicating research findings and ideas to the intended audience. The author must use appropriate terminology and jargon, have a clear and logical structure, and use proper grammar and syntax. Furthermore, authors must be able to handle the pressure of working on multiple projects simultaneously and still manage their time effectively to meet deadlines. Finally, ethical research practices and integrity are essential. The author must be transparent about sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest, ensure that research is conducted ethically, and comply with relevant guidelines and regulations. Overall, the qualities an author should possess include subject matter expertise, effective writing skills, time management, and a strong commitment to ethical research practices.
ATM: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval? What would happen if this process is omitted?
Dr. Park: It is crucial for researchers to apply for IRB approval because it ensures that their research is conducted ethically and in compliance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The IRB process involves a thorough review of the research protocol to assess potential risks to human subjects, as well as to evaluate the study design, data collection procedures, and the informed consent process. This ensures that the research is conducted in a way that respects the dignity and rights of the participants, and that the potential benefits of the research outweigh any potential risks.
If a researcher were to omit the IRB approval process, they would be conducting research without the necessary oversight and safeguards in place to protect human subjects. This could result in harm to participants, both physical and emotional, as well as legal and reputational consequences for the researcher and their institution. Additionally, if the research is intended for publication, journals may require proof of IRB approval as a condition of acceptance. Failure to obtain IRB approval could result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article. Overall, omitting the IRB approval process is not only unethical but could also have serious consequences for both the researcher and the participants involved in the study.
ATM: Why do you choose to publish in ATM?
Dr. Park: I should say that I chose to publish in ATM because it is a reputable and well-respected academic journal in my field. The journal has a strong reputation for publishing high-quality research that contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the field. Additionally, I appreciate the journal's focus on cutting-edge research and its commitment to promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation. Furthermore, I have found the editorial and peer-review processes to be fair, rigorous, and constructive, which has helped to improve the quality of my research. Overall, I am proud to have my work published in ATM and look forward to continuing to contribute to the journal in the future.
(Brad Li is the main author; Yi Tang, an intern of AME, helped proofread this interview)
Amos Lal
Amos Lal is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minnesota, USA. His major clinical and research interests include Sepsis and Digital Twin technology in Critical Care, COVID-19, and patient safety and quality improvement. His research includes observation and experimental research in critical care and outcomes-based research utilizing big data. He has published over 150 manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals internationally and has given presentations on his work at multiple international meetings and academic conferences along with invited grand rounds. His diverse publication portfolio includes work in intensive care medicine, artificial intelligence, and COVID-19 among others. His other areas of interest include improvement in healthcare delivery in underserved areas internationally by providing clinical care and teaching in developing countries such as Cambodia, Haiti, China, and the Balkans. Besides, he is an invited fellow of the American College of Physicians (FACP), and a member of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the American Thoracic Society. Connect with Dr. Lal on LinkedIn. A list of his published work can be found on ResearchGate.
Dr. Lal shares tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis as follows. Firstly, before even starting the search for evidence, it is essential to have a well-defined research question, which can narrow down your focus and identify the specific type of evidence you need. Secondly, understanding the hierarchy of evidence and selecting the appropriate study design will enhance the quality of evidence you gather. Different research questions require different study designs. For example, if you are exploring the effectiveness of a treatment, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold standard. Thirdly, to ensure the reliability and credibility of the evidence you select, it is impactful to use reputable sources and databases. Well-known databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase are often good starting points for finding high-quality studies. Exploring grey literature is sometimes helpful for a comprehensive literature review, but the ability to filter out good-quality research from noise is time-consuming and often adds an additional burden on the researcher. Fourthly, once you have identified potential studies, evaluate their methodological quality. Learning and gaining in-depth knowledge about tools such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale among others, based on the type of the study can assist in assessing the risk of bias. This step ensures that you prioritize studies with robust methodologies and minimize the risk of bias. Fifthly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence on a particular topic and use them as the lens to look at the currently available literature in the most comprehensive manner. They offer a higher level of evidence and can help you save time by summarizing the findings of multiple studies. Be sure to critically appraise the quality of these reviews before relying on their conclusions. Lastly, evidence in medicine is constantly evolving. It is important to stay updated with new research and studies that may impact your analysis. He suggests regularly reviewing new publications and considering setting up alerts for relevant topics in databases or journals. In conclusion, the process of selecting evidence for synthesis and analysis should be rigorous and systematic, which should be remembered.
Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. Speaking of his motivation to keep writing, Dr. Lal thinks that the bottom line is better clinical care of his patients. Staying engaged in good-quality research improves the care that he provides at the bedside for his patients and generates better evidence for the medical community at large.
Talking about the significance of research data sharing, Dr. Lal indicates that the answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Data sharing has its pros and cons. He explains that while, on the one hand, it can improve transparency and reproducibility, on the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about patient data privacy and safety. Not to mention the intellectual property issues, competing interests, publication bias, and potential misuse of data. While secondary analyses in some instances can provide new knowledge and have the potential to reduce the cost of research, the risks at times could outweigh the perceived benefits.
Dr. Lal addresses that even before the writing, the most crucial part of good-quality clinical research is a focused clinical research question. He adds, “Asking a good clinical research question requires years of intentional training and a patient-centered approach. At the end of the day, if the research does not help to improve patient outcomes, it is of little use.”
(By Hailing Lian, Brad Li)
Outstanding Author
Tobias Eckle
Tobias Eckle, MD, Ph.D., FASA, is Professor of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, USA. He earned his MD and Ph.D. from Eberhard-Karl’s University in Tübingen, Germany. He is a board-certified Anesthesiologist in Germany and the USA. His research work has been funded by the National Heart Lung Blood Institute (NHLBI) (R01, K08), the American Heart Association (SDG), the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (MRTG), and is currently funded by an NHLBI R56. He has authored over 80 peer-reviewed publications (H-index 41) in leading biomedical journals such as JCI, Blood, Circulation, PNAS, Nature Medicine, and Cell Reports. His current research is focused on enhancing circadian rhythms in the critical care setting using intense light or pharmacological therapy. Besides, he is the Director of Grand Rounds, the Medical Director of Advanced Practice Providers, and the Associate Vice Chair of Faculty Development. A list of his published work can be found on Google Scholar. Learn more about Dr. Eckle here and connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Eckle’s opinion, essential elements of a good academic paper include a clear background, a strong hypothesis, and an exciting storyline. Each experiment or result should follow a rationale. Even an inexperienced reader should be able to follow the storyline. Therefore, the writing style should always target a broader audience.
To select the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis, Dr. Eckle suggests having a careful look at the author’s impact on the field. One important concept to bear in mind is that one incorporates his/her ideas about information from each text used as his/her contribution to the conversation. In addition, he points out the importance of Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure, for research and academic opinions should be unbiased and free from any influences.
From Dr. Eckle’s point of view, the most fascinating aspect of academic writing is seeing the proofs and getting recognized after publishing. Another fascinating aspect is working with other talented researchers and watching a science paper into a high-quality manuscript. “Being able to influence the research field and spread your ideas are very fascinating experiences,” says he.
(By Hailing Lian, Brad Li)
Brad B. Nelson
Dr. Brad Nelson is an Assistant Professor, a large animal surgeon, and a principal investigator within both the Preclinical Surgical Research Laboratory (PSRL) and the Orthopaedic Research Center (ORC) at the C. Wayne McIlwraith Translational Medicine Institute at Colorado State University (CSU). He completed his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an equine surgery and imaging internship at Washington State University, and a residency in Equine Surgery at CSU, becoming board-certified by the American College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2014. Afterwards, he completed a Ph.D. in translational orthopedics and articular cartilage imaging through the ORC. He joined the PSRL in 2018. Currently, he is an Assistant Professor of Equine Surgery at the Johnson Family Equine Hospital. His research is focused on the development and utilization of large animal translational preclinical models of orthopedic disease and the incorporation and development of advanced imaging strategies for use in those domains.
From Dr. Nelson’s perspective, academic writing is a critical component of science and research. It is a crucial process for communicating new research findings in an objective manner to the public as well as clinicians and fellow researchers. Due to the increased number of media platforms available that magnify the number of opinions that can be heard, having a structured peer-review process is more essential than ever in ensuring data is disseminated with limited or at least acknowledged bias. It also serves as an important educational tool to ensure students learn how to present findings with objectivity and help effectively advance medicine.
To Dr. Nelson, synthesizing a plethora of information on a topic can be very difficult. Invariably study parameters such as inclusion criteria and methodology will differ among studies and therefore may lead to conflicting results. He shares that he tries to incorporate the level of evidence of the particular study when determining the impact of the results. For example, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have higher levels of evidence and are less susceptible to bias than single descriptive or qualitative studies, unless there are limited data available. Meanwhile, he also tries to avoid making any conclusions based on a single study whenever possible. Generally, a group of studies that have similar conclusions are elevated above a single study that has differing outcomes. However, the same result from multiple studies is not necessarily better, and the level of evidence must also be taken into consideration.
Dr. Nelson stresses that the approval of the institutional review board (IRB) and animal care and use committees (ACUC) are of the utmost importance for objective research, for those independent committees ensure that the methods and protocols used in the study are suitable and clearly outlined, capturing any risks to humans or animals. While many researchers do not purposely intend to hurt their research subjects, this is an additional verification step by independent scientists, researchers, clinicians, and representatives from the lay public, which helps to ensure that the study is conducted with adherence to ethical acceptability, identifying possible biases, and compliance with local regulations. All in all, this is an essential step in providing transparency of research practices and giving the public confidence that there is oversight in what is done.
Lastly, Dr. Nelson advises graduate students early in their education to learn to schedule their time to write, which will help them integrate these habits into their daily routines. He adds, “Some examples are to plan days or part of the day to commit to writing. Finding large blocks of time can be difficult, but even taking 30 minutes each morning to do some writing can make a large impact and the productivity will accumulate over time. I think that is an effective strategy in prioritizing time for scientific writing.”
(By Hailing Lian, Brad Li)
Wouter Van Genechten
Dr. Wouter Van Genechten is an orthopaedic resident from the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He has a keen interest in general traumatology, sports injuries, and athlete coaching. Knee and shoulder surgeries are his preferred joints to treat. Currently, he is finishing a Ph.D. thesis about the medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. Joint preservation is key to him and he is always willing to exhaust all conservative options before going into surgery with his patients. Working hard and efficiently gives him the most satisfaction at the end of the day, especially when working in an environment that aims for a common purpose. A list of his published work can be found on ResearchGate. Connect with Dr. Van Genechten on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Van Genechten, the role of academic writing is crucial in the way science is communicated to the audience. One prefers to read a well-written structured paper when a topic update is desired. He adds that reading good papers helps him a lot in starting his own writing skills as well as improving his academic writing. He combines this with some intensive scientific writing courses to ensure qualitative writing to communicate his personal scientific findings. Nowadays, personal academic writing skills might become less important with the growing popularity of open AI technology like ChatGPT. However, to formulate punch lines of a paper, for example, open AI is currently falling short and it is up to the authors to completely understand their scientific contribution and impact on the field.
Dr. Van Genechten points out that his main scientific interest has been in osteotomies around the knee for the past 4 years and the number of hits on PubMed for ‘high tibial osteotomy’ has doubled over the past 5 years. To ensure one’s writing is up-to-date and give new insights into the field of research, he reckons that important new papers on this topic are mostly shown on LinkedIn or via Email as an overview of papers in a new journal issue. Of course, in-depth literature research is always required before writing a discussion section about one’s research topic. Via the ‘snowball’ effect of the previous paper, one can easily cover over 90% of the existing literature with the most important paper published in high-ranked journals. He also attaches great importance to meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding consensus, as he often cites them in discussion wherever possible.
Seeing the importance of following reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA) during the preparation of manuscripts, Dr. Van Genechten indicates that he is a proponent of standardization in research. To him, the implementation of diagrams and checklists makes both the review process and the reading after publication a pleasure. Besides, for the authors, it forms a robust framework to make their research more reliable. Nevertheless, there should remain enough space for personal completion in some paper sections. Next to reporting guidelines, he advocates the use of similar outcome measures within the same research topic in order to ease inter-study comparison in discussion sections. He thinks this is still a major burden from which false conclusions are deducted. Many clinical outcomes are subjective which should be adjusted with the objective independent clinician’s perspective.
To allocate time to write papers, Dr. Van Genechten shares that he has been combining full-time clinical work (orthopaedic resident) with finishing a Ph.D. thesis for the past 2 years. This was a difficult period with little spare time. Mainly in summer, when clinical work starts to slow down, he tries to focus on advancing into research projects and paper writing. It is an exercise of balancing one’s personal learning curve in clinics while continuing to make small steps in one’s research projects. He says, “Efficiency is key to combining both, and some vacation days needed to be sacrificed for the good of research work. When I feel a clinical day will be over sooner than expected, I’m starting to plan which research topic I can dive into that night.”
(By Hailing Lian, Brad Li)
Kento Takeshima
Dr. Kento Takeshima currently serves at the Department of Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Toyama, Japan. He is a clinician, educator, and researcher in primary care and medical education. He has spent most of his career as a primary care physician practicing in rural hospitals and clinics in Japan. In the course of his practice, he has come to realise that there are questions that other doctors have in common. In his practice, he tries to verbalise and clarify these universal questions that arise in primary care. Dr. Takeshima’s latest area of interest is learning about primary care, including interprofessional education.
“If we can describe our thoughts and opinions in a persuasive and effective way, we can communicate those arguments more accurately and to a wider audience,” says Dr. Takeshima when asked about the purpose of academic writing. In his view, it is particularly important and effective to communicate succinctly to people from all over the world and with different backgrounds in a common format called academic writing. Writing in a highly original style may be unique and sometimes engaging, but he believes it is less likely to get to the point and more likely to fail to meet the needs of the reader.
To make one’s writing critical, Dr. Takeshima puts forth three things that researchers can do. The first step is one’s training in academic writing. Although the process is time-consuming, it is an important foundational step. Secondly, discuss one’s writing with multiple individuals, including co-authors. Thirdly, use a service that can impartially revise one’s academic and English writing. To him, academic writing in English can be a major problem for people who do not speak English as their first language, as in his case. In view of this, he thinks non-native English speakers need a service that checks their academic writing objectively. This service is vital for academic presentations.
The way Dr. Takeshima sees it, research queries and personal interests are closely related. The institutional review board (IRB) is responsible for overseeing ethical research planning. Researchers must not conduct any studies that do not have IRB approval. If a paper is published without going through this important process, such research may not be recognized in the future, and the researcher’s previous work might also be disregarded. Moreover, it is important to remember that researchers around the world who unknowingly based their studies on fraudulent research have wasted their efforts.
“My main drive to academic writing is to converse with medical peers from all over the world when I give scientific presentations. The concepts and friendships that I have acquired through such conversations have evolved into a valuable asset for my new research. I aspire to broaden my career outlook by establishing fresh collaborations with peers around the globe via various scientific activities,” says Dr. Takeshima.
(by Brad Li, Hailing Lian)
Patrick M. Honore
Dr. Patrick M. Honore is the Head of the ICU Department in CHU UCL Namur, Belgium, since 2022. He has got experience as intensivist and researcher at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas Hospital, and Austin and Repatriation Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. He has been successively being a professor at the VUIB University, The ULB University and finally the UCL Louvain Medical School. He is also a full time clinician intensivist and being on call as first on. He has published more than 450 papers in PubMed in critical care and Nephrology.
To Dr. Honore, academic research or writing takes up the crucial role of fostering the invention of new techniques and new medications by uncovering the rationale of therapy. He works with multidisciplinary team which he deems a good channel to keep up with the latest advancement and knowledge for staying up-to-date in the industry. Practically, he makes use of a red flag system to stay alert with some new, important papers being published.
In academic writing, he thinks it is essential to disclose Conflicts of Interest (COI) properly as COI can bias review papers, editorial or research papers. “It is sometimes better not to publish if there are too many COIs,” says he.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Pattrapun Wongsripuemtet
Dr. Pattrapun Wongsripuemtet graduated from the Faculty of Medicine at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, in 2011, obtained a certificate in anesthesia in 2015, and completed a fellowship in cardiovascular anesthesia in 2019. Currently, she holds the position of a clinical instructor at the Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, situated in Bangkok, Thailand. Her primary interest and focus are on enhancing perioperative cardiovascular care, particularly in the areas of aortic surgery and critical care.
ATM: What do you regard as a good academic paper? What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Dr. Wongsripuemtet: I am continually striving to enhance my skills in producing excellent academic papers and contributing positively to this field. In my opinion, a good academic paper should encompass several key elements. Firstly, it needs a clear and concise thesis statement. The body of the paper should exhibit a clear methodology, allowing the results to be articulated fairly and accurately, avoiding any misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the findings. One of the most challenging aspects, in my experience, is the discussion section. Here, presenting a well-organized and structured discussion that encapsulates the main concepts of the study is crucial to ensure the reader gains a comprehensive understanding and for fostering the development of new ideas.
ATM: Can you share your process of coming up with a topic that highly interests you?
Dr. Wongsripuemtet: I typically begin by identifying topics that capture my interest and are the subject of ongoing debates or questions that arise in my daily work. I then conduct a comprehensive literature review, focusing on developing a specific research question. A well-defined research question is the foundation of the entire process. Once I have a well-formulated question, I develop a hypothesis and establish a methodology to effectively address it. The goal is to determine whether this knowledge can improve our practices or provide valuable insights to my field or to readers.
ATM: From an author’s perspective, do you think it is important to follow reporting guidelines during preparation of manuscripts?
Dr. Wongsripuemtet: Adhering to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT or PRISMA, is essential in academic research for ensuring accurate, reproducible, and transparent research. These guidelines offer clear and standardized reporting methods. Their significance lies in aiding comprehensive understanding and replication of studies by other researchers, facilitating evaluation by editors and peer reviewers, and improving accessibility and readability for all audiences. Compliance with those guidelines ensures transparent reporting of methodologies, enabling readers, reviewers, and the public to engage effectively with research findings. Furthermore, following these guidelines supports reproducibility, strengthens trust in scientific integrity, and streamlines the review process. In essence, adherence to reporting guidelines is essential for ensuring accurate, reproducible, and transparent research, benefiting both the scientific community and the general public.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Oscar J. Manrique
Dr. Oscar J. Manrique, M.D., F.A.C.S., is a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon and Fellow of The American College of Surgeons in the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, USA. He did his clinical training in General Surgery and Trauma/Surgical Critical Care at the Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School and Boston Medical Center/Boston University, followed by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and subsequently by Fellowships in Microsurgery/Lymphatic Surgery at the University of Southern-California in Los Angeles and China Medical University Hospital in Taiwan. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles, more than a dozen of book chapters and serves as reviewer for several journals in Plastic Surgery. Connect with Dr. Manrique on Instagram.
Speaking of academic writing, Dr. Manrique thinks it can transform the life of millions of people. “The impact of providing our clinical expertise through a scientific paper is unparallel,” says he. In the process of writing a paper, he would make use of every statistical tool and through a very rigorous review process to avoid biases. He emphasizes that it is crucial for authors to stay honest and critical in handling the data for a research paper. He also agrees it is important to collaborate with other researchers around the world, for data sharing within the field, in order to gather clinical experiences and to standardize protocols based on research of different experts for improving the current standards of care.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Riccardo D’Ambrosi
Dr. Riccardo D’Ambrosi works in the CASCO Department at IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi – Sant’Ambrogio and is also a researcher at the University of Milan, Italy. He is mainly involved in ligament knee surgery (ACL, PCL, multiligamentous knee surgery) and pays particular attention to sports medicine and regenerative medicine (scaffold implantation, cartilage regeneration, infiltrative treatments). Dr. D’Ambrosi has more than 110 impactful publications on PubMed, most of them are on clinical practice and systematic reviews focusing on knee surgery with numerous international collaborations. In 2016, he was awarded for the Best Orthopedics Oral Communication at the National Shoulder and Elbow Congress (SICSeG); in 2018 and 2019, the Best Poster at the Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SIOT) National Congress; and in 2021, the Best Knee Presentation at Pre-Meeting Virtual SIOT Congress. He has also been a co-author and won a prize at ESSKA Congress. Dr. D’Ambrosi has recently been recognized as ESSKA Teacher and is involved in the International Quadriceps Tendon Interest Group. He is also an EKA Mentor and has completed the ESSKA European Certification Programme on the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Module. He serves as peer reviewer for some of the most impactful international journals on Orthopedics, Traumatology, Rheumatology and more. He is the editor of the Special Issue "Clinical Advances in Knee Surgery" in Journal of Clinical Medicine (Impact Factor 4.964) and the editor of the Special Issue "Lower Limb Diseases and Injuries in Children and Adolescents" in Children Journal (Impact Factor 2.078). Currently, he is a member of the Editorial Board of the Annals of Translational Medicine (Impact Factor 3.297), Journal of Orthopedics, World Journal of Orthopedics and JAJS. He is one of the founding members of the newly established ESSKA Hip Preservation Associates (EHPA) Section, Member of SIAGASCOT (Società Italiana di artroscopia, ginocchio, arto superiore, sport, cartilagine e tecnologie ortopediche), Member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia), and so on. Connect with Dr. D’Ambrosi on Instagram.
Dr. D’Ambrosi thinks scientific writing is the primary channel for scientific knowledge communication. In the orthopedic surgeon field, which is of great competence, the work and results of advanced surgeries and treatments must be documented, validated, and shared to make it valuable to others. Scientific writing captures the research in an applicable format. The five key aspects of scientific writing to Dr. D’Ambrosi are: 1) Discrete units of work; 2) Quality control; 3) A solid record; 4) Distribution and 5) Credit. Writing in science is not only for communicating with others; it is also a tool for scientists and students alike to learn about critical thinking, idea synthesizing, and coming up with conclusions. He further shares, “Scientific writing is an essential component of the entire scientific process, despite its lack of glamour. It would be practically difficult to organize knowledge in a way that is clear or accessible without peer-reviewed academic journals. Although the system has shortcomings, it is currently the best we have. Whether you like it or not, scientific writing is unquestionably crucial.”
Dr. D’Ambrosi continues to point out that a crucial step in the research process is staying current with ideas and research, which might be a difficult undertaking because of the vast volume of journal articles released annually. He shares a variety of strategies and tools on how to stay current with newly released materials in the field of interest by looking through table of contents of relevant journals and databases of pertinent subjects, configuring email notifications from publishers' websites and databases and observing pertinent scholars or institutions on social media.
Speaking of conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure, Dr. D’Ambrosi points out that appearance holds equal significance to actuality. For that reason, he thinks it is critical to declare any COI. Most organizations have a policy that addresses COI including disclosure, which is usually a more formal written process. The goal of the disclosure process is to empower employees to take responsibility for their actions and choices and to be open and honest about them. Although it may help dispel the illusion, disclosing a potential COI does not turn it into one. Conversely, revealing a real COI does not eliminate it; rather, it brings it to light so that it can be appropriately resolved. “It is crucial to declare any apparent or real COI so that others can assess the issue and decide on what to do. If one keeps it to themselves, this could lead to moral or legal dilemmas. Since the person lacks an impartial or independent point of view, they are unable to determine if there is a conflict or not,” says he.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Elliot Ho
Dr. Elliot Ho completed his sub-specialty training in Interventional Pulmonology at the University of Chicago and is currently an Assistant Professor at Loma Linda University Medical Center in the US. As an interventional pulmonologist, he performs advanced diagnostic procedures such as robotic-assisted bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound with biopsies, and advanced therapeutic procedures such as rigid bronchoscopies with tumor debulking, thoracoscopies, and bronchial lung volume reduction. His research experiences include the use of thoracic ultrasound, robotic bronchoscopy, and endobronchial ultrasound. With over 15 publications, Dr. Ho plans to continue pursuing his research interest in navigational bronchoscopy and pleural disease. He hopes to expand the accessibility of minimally invasive bronchoscopic techniques in robotic bronchoscopy and bronchial lung volume reduction for emphysema. Connect with Dr. Ho on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ho believes academic writing holds great value, as it allows the sharing of knowledge in the academic community, by relying on objective evidence and scientific data. It also fosters conversations and discussions from different viewpoints, encouraging the assessment of the quality of evidence supporting the ideas and the exploration of new perspectives in research.
To ensure the writing remains relevant and up-to-date, Dr. Ho thinks it is important to stay actively involved in the academic community. He shares, “This can be accomplished through maintaining subscriptions to pertinent academic journals and staying current with daily reading, actively engaging in writing and reviewing articles on specific topics, participation in discussions with fellow experts in the respective fields, attendance at research conferences, and involvement in teaching activities at academic institutions. With this, we can enrich our understanding of current practices and promote the generation of new ideas within the research domain.”
Finally, speaking of disclosure of conflict of interest (COI), Dr. Ho points out that COI does not inherently carry a negative connotation as authors collaborating with industry partners can be essential for securing the resources necessary to conduct timely research. Additionally, the authors' partnerships with industry and their field of expertise may offer a unique perspective. However, he stresses that it is crucial for authors to transparently disclose these COIs. This ensures an honest and open discussion within the academic community, allowing for a nuanced understanding of potential biases that may influence the research.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Debkumar Chowdhury
Dr. Chowdhury graduated from the University of Bristol and undertook foundation training in the West of Scotland, UK. Following which he undertook training in General Surgery and Emergency Medicine, Lectureship at the University of Glasgow and Post Graduate qualification in Medical Education. He has then been awarded Membership of the Academy of Medical Educator (MAcadMEd). He works as a Specialist in Emergency Medicine and has qualifications pertaining to this at the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. His area of research is in Trauma Sciences and on gaining understanding into factors that are critical to improving outcomes from major trauma. His latest area of research and dissertation for his Masters in Trauma Sciences (Merit, Queen Mary University of London) was on the role of tranexamic acid in the open operative management of pelvic fractures. He has also undertaken the role of Associate Primary Investigator (NIHR funded) for the COMMITED trial. Having interest in public health, he has also been awarded Fellow of the Royal Society of Public Health. He has authored several PubMed-indexed (and other major databases) articles on topics relating to Emergency Medicine, Critical Care and Surgery. He holds the position of Associate Editor in the International Journal of Surgery and Annals of Medicine and Surgery and has also reviewed several articles published in PubMed. Learn more about Dr. Chowdhury from Scopus and ResearchGate, and connect with him on LinkedIn.
Speaking of evidence synthesis in academic writing, Dr. Chowdhury thinks the choice of topic and gaining an understanding of what has already been published is a key prior to undertaking research in any particular field. “Experts in the field will be updated on advances in that particular field, so its pertinent that a discussion is undertaken prior to commencement of a project. It can be a tedious process and thereby requires dedicated time and concerted efforts,” adds he. In the process of composing the paper, he agrees that data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing. Whilst it is crucial for researchers to be able to share their data, he emphasizes that the quality of the data has to be maintained at the highest level.
With profound experiences of being an editor and reviewer for hundreds of articles, Dr. Chowdhury has the following advices for junior researchers. He points out that for the novice in particular, it is imperative for the author to be able to adhere to writing only in scientific terms as this would help ensure getting the message across. This is the area of deficiencies that he has noticed in his course of editorial career. He continues, “If you are faced with the dreaded writer’s block, have a discussion with the Editor-in-Chief and your well-informed peers, they can provide you invaluable advice and direction.”
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Alexandre G. Lellouch
Dr. Alexandre Lellouch is an international scientific surgeon, serving as a Lecturer at Harvard Medical School and practicing plastic surgery. He earned his PhD in tissue engineering from Grenoble Alpes University, specializing in the development of skin substitutes. With extensive experience in microsurgery and reconstruction, Dr. Lellouch played a key role in the first penile transplantation in the USA and the inaugural case of face retransplantation in France. Currently, he is actively involved in groundbreaking research at the VCA Laboratory within Massachusetts General Hospital. His expertise spans various fields, with a primary focus on advancing the prognosis of composite tissue allotransplantations. His research encompasses areas such as immune tolerance induction through bone marrow transplantation, perfusion machine technology, bioengineering, and nanotechnology. Dr. Lellouch has been instrumental in developing protocols to induce immune tolerance in primates, employing a cutting-edge approach. He has authored over 70 papers in scientific journals. Connect with him on Instagram and LinkedIn.
A well-crafted scientific paper in translational research applied to surgery, in Dr. Lellouch’s opinion, must embody three crucial elements: utility, replicability, and visionary impact. Firstly, the paper should demonstrate utility by addressing a relevant clinical problem or gap in current surgical practices. It needs to offer practical solutions or insights that can be directly applied in real-world medical settings, enhancing the effectiveness or safety of surgical procedures. Secondly, replicability is paramount. The methods and findings presented in the paper should be described comprehensively and with meticulous detail, enabling fellow researchers to replicate the study. This ensures the credibility of the research and facilitates the integration of new techniques or interventions into broader surgical contexts. Lastly, a high-quality scientific paper should open new vistas for future research and clinical applications. It should stimulate further inquiry and exploration by proposing innovative approaches, technologies, or theoretical frameworks. By pushing the boundaries of current knowledge, the paper contributes to the continuous evolution and improvement of surgical practices. In summary, a successful paper in translational research for surgery not only addresses practical concerns but also provides a solid foundation for ongoing scientific discourse and advancements in the field.
To ensure the continual relevance and fresh perspectives in his writing, Dr. Lellouch employs various sources, including the Internet, published textbooks, and online platforms like ResearchGate and LinkedIn. These resources serve as valuable tools for staying informed about the latest developments in his areas of interest. He emphasizes the significance of attending high-profile meetings, congresses, and courses as crucial avenues for acquiring cutting-edge knowledge and insights. In addition to these methods, he actively utilizes innovative platforms such as SciNFT to explore emerging trends and novel perspectives within his research domain. Acknowledging the importance of a multifaceted approach, he also highlights the utility of his institute's library services. These services serve as a starting point for preliminary yet comprehensive literature research on topics relevant to his ongoing projects. By integrating diverse sources, he ensures a well-rounded and up-to-date understanding of the subject matter.
In addition, Dr. Lellouch highlights that obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is imperative for ethical, legal, and research integrity reasons. The IRB ensures the protection of human subjects by overseeing informed consent, assessing risks and benefits, and upholding ethical principles. Compliance with regulatory requirements is mandated by many institutions and countries, preventing legal repercussions. IRB approval enhances the credibility of research, fostering trust in the scientific community. Without this approval, ethical breaches may occur, risking harm to participants and undermining the integrity of the research process. Legal consequences, damaged professional reputations, and restricted research impact are potential outcomes of omitting the IRB approval process. In essence, IRB approval is a cornerstone for ethical research, legal compliance, and maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific endeavors.
“The process of paper writing is a continuous and collaborative endeavor, seamlessly intertwining experimental execution or clinical studies with reflective contemplation and the act of writing itself. In my professional practice, I am fortunate to oversee the work of Ph.D. candidates, research fellows, and technicians. Through numerous meetings, each team member contributes their unique perspective and expertise, enriching the collective effort. This dynamic collaboration involves a perpetual cycle of experimental design, data interpretation, and scholarly writing. The synthesis of ideas and insights from diverse team members fosters a robust intellectual environment, ensuring that our research endeavors are thorough, well-rounded, and methodically communicated. Regular meetings serve as forums for brainstorming, problem-solving, and refining our approach, creating a synergy that enhances the overall quality and impact of our scientific publications. The iterative nature of this process reflects our commitment to excellence and the continuous advancement of knowledge in our field,” says Dr. Lellouch.
(by Brad Li, Christie Lv)
Ashley V. Fritz
Dr. Ashley V. Fritz, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, is an integral member of the thoracic transplant team at Mayo Clinic Jacksonville. With a relentless commitment to patient care, she specializes in heart and lung transplant procedures, contributing significantly to the clinic's renowned cardiology and transplant programs as an anesthesiologist. Dr. Fritz earned her medical degree with honors from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine and completed rigorous residency and fellowship training at Mayo Clinic. She is known for her empathetic approach and innovative contributions to anesthetic care. She plays a pivotal role in advancing cardiothoracic medicine. Her collaborative spirit and passion for research underscore her commitment to improving outcomes for patients undergoing complex surgical interventions at Mayo Clinic Jacksonville. Connect with Dr. Fritz on X @avfdo.
Academic writing is the backbone of scientific communication. From Dr. Fritz’s perspective, it allows researchers to share their research findings, insights, and advancements with the broader scientific community. Through publications, they contribute to the collective knowledge in their field, enabling others to build upon their work and fostering a continuous cycle of discovery and improvement.
According to Dr. Fritz, critical writing involves a thoughtful and evaluative approach. To ensure her writing is critical, she carefully analyzes the evidence supporting her arguments, questions assumptions, and considers alternative viewpoints. She thinks it is essential to provide a balanced and well-supported perspective, acknowledging the limitations of the research and considering the broader implications of the findings.
Seeing the prevalence of research data sharing in recent years, Dr. Fritz stresses that such practice is crucial in advancing science. Transparent sharing of research data allows for greater scrutiny and validation of findings, promoting scientific integrity. It enhances the reproducibility of studies and enables other researchers to build upon existing work, accelerating the pace of discovery. Ultimately, she believes that the collective sharing of data benefits the scientific community, fostering collaboration and driving progress in our understanding the complex world of thoracic transplant and medicine as a whole.
“The motivation to stay involved in academic writing comes from the desire to contribute meaningfully to my field. Knowing that my research and insights can potentially impact patient care or advance medical knowledge is a powerful driving force. Additionally, the collaboration and exchange of ideas with colleagues during the writing process can be intellectually rewarding, making the time and effort invested worthwhile,” says Dr. Fritz.
(by Brad Li, Christie Lv)
Joshua Vorstenbosch
Joshua Vorstenbosch, MD PhD FRCSC, is a plastic-surgeon scientist at the McGill University with a clinical focus on breast cancer reconstruction and a research focus on evaluating cellular and molecular events at tissue-implant interfaces. He earned his PhD at McGill studying molecular mechanisms of wound healing and fibrosis while concurrently studying medicine where he graduated as valedictorian. He followed his studies at McGill with residency training in plastic surgery at the University of Manitoba. Before returning to McGill, he did a reconstructive oncologic microsurgery fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Clinically, Dr. Vorstenbosch offers a breadth of breast reconstructive options ranging from using patients’ own tissues to various implant-based breast reconstructive procedures. In his practice, he sees many patients affected by pathology and fibrosis arising from the tissue-implant interface in implant-based breast reconstruction. He brings this immediate clinical contact to the lab in order to better understand the mechanisms underlying these conditions in an attempt to improve patient outcomes. Learn more about Dr. Vorstenbosch here and connect with him on LinkedIn.
From Dr. Vorstenbosch’s perspective, one of the most commonly encountered difficulties during academic writing results from a lack of adequate planning. When working with trainees, he frequently sees them write paper without proper planning, and unfortunately, it often results in the paper needing to be re-written altogether. “By developing a strong outline of your paper or project to clearly lay out how you are investigating your hypothesis, the author will arrive at the final product more efficiently and eloquently,” says Dr. Vorstenbosch.
Dr. Vorstenbosch also shares his experience during the preparation of a paper. It becomes so frustrating when he realizes after reviewing hundreds of charts that one or two data points are missing, and that all of the charts need to be reviewed again. What he likes to do is to have a strong literature review before starting any project to see what is out there, write the introduction of the paper before doing the study, and then develop a strong hypothesis. Once this is done, he will draft table “shells” in both his clinical and basic science work, which are effectively empty tables or figures to lay out how he plans to investigate the hypothesis of the work. This helps to ensure that the data points collected are complete and reduces repeat work later on.Once the data are collected, he and his team will populate the tables which makes for a very efficient analysis since it is already organized, and then they will draft an outline of the discussion to frame the work in the broader context of the literature. Dr. Vorstenbosch was introduced to this very structured approach to research when he was a fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and he has found that it has really amplified his research productivity.
Dr. Vorstenbosch also emphasizes structure’s contribution to research efficiency in both the clinical and scientific spheres. A strong structured approach to addressing a strong, structured hypothesis will make the scientific process easier for all and drastically increase the probability of work getting published.
Speaking of the importance of following reporting guidelines, Dr. Vorstenbosch expresses a positive attitude, “I think that each of these has their merits and again, they promote a structured process to help ensure that the manuscripts are complete. I think they are great to elevate the scientific quality that is published in the literature.”
(by Christie Lv, Brad Li)
Maged Henary
Maged Henary received a BSc degree from Alexandria University in 1990, a MSc in organic chemistry in 1996 from Cairo University, Egypt and a PhD in 2000 in medicinal chemistry from Georgia State University (GSU), USA. Dr. Henary worked as a postdoctoral fellow at Georgia Tech on the development of fluorescent zinc sensors. He is an Associate Professor and the Associate Chair in the Chemistry Department at GSU. He serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Heterocyclic Communications, and other Editorial Boards of various journals. Dr. Henary’s research focuses on the synthesis of small molecules and various classes NIR dyes to be used as anticancer and imaging agents. He published more than 125 articles in high impact journals with more than 6,700 citations and he has obtained eight patents corresponding to NIR technology. National Institute of Health, Health Innovation and the Venture Lab grants from the State of Georgia support his research. Learn more about Dr. Henary here, and follow him on Google Scholar and LinkedIn.
ATM: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Dr. Henary: Good academic paper must include data that bring new knowledges to the scientific community. This work needs to provide innovative or fundamental discoveries that move science in a positive direction. Another important element is having a clear focus on the research problem under investigation. I emphasize on creating a story that guide the reader through the problem presented and describe to them my solution. Another essential element is appropriate presentation of the data in clear and recognizable manner. I want the figures and table to be understandable without confusion. A good academic paper honestly describes the data in manner that does not overreach the data presented and is not manipulated.
ATM: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Dr. Henary: Evidence synthesis requires a deep search into published material from literature, which should look at all aspects of how the research problem was previously addressed. Based on the search, the author must determine how the new work develops or improves previous works. The selection of data must fully suffice the conclusion presented in work. The analysis of data must be done to prevent exaggeration. The data must be performed multiple times to ensure accuracy and precision. I show all the data that are needed to support the conclusion and ask peers to review the analysis to determine if the data support the analysis.
ATM: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Henary: The IRB approval helps to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of principal investigators, students, postdoctoral fellows by ensuring that the research topic is designed and conducted in a way that reduces hazards and maximizes the research benefits. In my lab, I maintain a high vigilance of safety to ensure that all researchers in my lab are safe, familiar and protected from potential hazards. The research participants are completely informed of their privileges and any potential risks associated with the research study. The IRB also ensures that the research is conducted in agreement with ethical and legal guidelines and regulations controlled by the institution and the department of education. Additionally, a research conducted without IRB approval may not be qualified for publication, federal funding, which can encumber the academic progression and career development of the participants.
ATM: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Henary: Everyone has busy life so developing a define time and space to write is critical in writing papers. I divide my time into categories so that I can provide time to accomplish my goals and write papers. When a step time aside to write, I work in an efficient and effective ways to ensure no time will be wasted. In addition, I mentor my students in developing habits that allow them to write papers in a timely manner and work with them to revise their work through multiple rounds of editing to achieve a paper on publishing quality. I train my students so that they can write papers and apply this writing experience in their future endowers.
(by Brad Li, Christie Lv)
Kirk W. Beach
Dr. Kirk Beach is an Emeritus Research Professor at the Department of Surgery in University of Washington, US. He has been interested in fluid flow and the transport of charges, solutes and fluids for over half a century. He was privileged to study Electrical Engineering, Electrochemical Engineering and Medicine, and to be supervised by Charles Tobias, Rolf Muller, Ted Beck, Al Essig, Gene Strandness and others. In the 1960s, during the exciting political times in Berkeley, he and his friends dreamed of creating better batteries for electric cars, but did not predict the revolutions to come in portable microcomputing. Now Dr. Beach is most interested in how signaling molecules are transported in blood vessels, thinking first of arterial flow, and too frequently forgetting venous flow. Some of these molecules are dissolved in plasma, but some are carried by the cellular components of blood, and thus the transport is modulated by shear and buoyant forces on these particles during flow. These factors likely affect evolution of the shape of the conduits. Particularly when arterial flow is obstructed by an atheroma or vasospasm; the resulting turbulence dissipates hemodynamic power reducing the efficiency of the convection forced by the heart. But the turbulence also broadcasts a bruit or murmur as a diagnostic signature while it promotes compensatory remodeling serving to restore perfusion control to the dependent endorgans nourished by the circulation.
One puzzling issue is how the brain floats in the combination of fluids within the skull during activities of daily living including sports and occupational events. Better understanding of brain perfusion and motion might provide information to help minimize cerebral injuries that affect brain performance. While some cerebral events span milliseconds, some effects are not measurable with current methods for hours, days, decades or lifetimes. Of course, many scientific endeavors are challenged by similar disparities in time. The development of theories and methods, the discovery of the relevant parameters and variables, and the creation of instruments and analyses is the quest in most scientific explorations.
Although some transport experiments can be conducted on the benchtop, Bioengineering founder Bob Rushmer asserted that studies are best done during normal life activities. Such studies require that animals and people volunteer to participate as experimental subjects for interventions and/or monitoring. Dr. Beach first served on a Human Subjects Review Board in 1973, gaining an appreciation for the careful consideration and planning required to assure that the participants were safe and that the potential benefits of such research justified the effort and any risk. In spite of the careful advice of experienced investigators providing guidance for research plans, there are often unanticipated events that escape prediction including: patient volunteers falling during procedures, equipment unexpectedly igniting, breeches of patient confidentiality, and data variability due to unanticipated factors. Good review and monitoring by an Institutional Review Board can help to optimize the chance of project success as well as minimizing and compensating for bad outcomes.
Now, well into retirement, Dr. Beach uses electronic access to library resources around the world to observe, if not fully examine and understand, the work of the variety of investigators, each perceiving important issues from a unique perspective. Through the exchange of ideas and information, he hopes that progress in understanding the super-macroscopic and sub-microscopic world will create ways to make healthier and more satisfying lives for all.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Mui Teng Chua
Dr. Mui Teng Chua is a Senior Consultant and Deputy Research Director at the Emergency Medicine Department (EMD), National University Hospital, and Assistant Professor at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore (NUS), in Singapore. As an avid clinician-investigator, she has special research interests in epidemiology, critical care, infectious diseases and ultrasonography. She was awarded the NMRC New Investigator Grant in 2017 and has over 40 publications to her name, including one that was awarded the Annals Academy of Medicine, Singapore, Best Publication Silver Award in 2017. She has mentored several junior clinicians, nurses and medical students in their early research years. She also authored several chapters in the 3rd edition of the Guide to Essentials in Emergency Medicine. She is keen to seek collaborations in fields related to her research interests, academically and commercially, both locally and internationally. Connect with Dr. Chua on LinkedIn and X (Twitter).
Academic writing, to Dr. Chua, is an integral part of progressing medical science, by allowing new knowledge and discoveries to be shared and communicated internationally. It encourages collaboration between institutions globally and serves as a valuable resource for education and training. She explains, “Academic writing in scientific journals also goes through the peer-review process, this helps ensure quality and validity of the published data. It is an important avenue for researchers to showcase their expertise and contributions, as well as gaining recognition from their peers.”
During the process of academic writing, in order to avoid biases, Dr. Chua points out that it is important to use neutral language to avoid negative or positive connotations. It is also important to consider presenting multiple viewpoints from diverse sources and acknowledge various arguments and evidence to provide a comprehensive view of the topic in discussion. Reviews from colleagues are also useful for providing feedback and identifying areas of biases.
Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Many national funding agencies now require data to be deposited in a repository for all their awarded grants. To a certain extent, Dr. Chua thinks data sharing helps provide transparency in the research process and allows researchers to evaluate the results, contributing to accountability, reliability and reproducibility. She agrees that by making data available, other clinician-scientists would be able to leverage on existing data to build a basis for new investigations and discoveries. It also avoids duplication of research efforts and redundancy; and at the same time providing opportunities to combine datasets for a robust meta-analysis across patient populations.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Ralf Weiskirchen
Prof. Ralf Weiskirchen was born in Bergisch Gladbach, North Rhine Westphalia, Germany. After completing his school education, he studied Biology and earned his PhD with distinction at the University of Cologne. Following this, he worked as a Research Associate at the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Upon returning to Germany, he completed his habilitation at the RWTH University Hospital Aachen and became a Professor, a position he assumed in 2007. Currently, he serves as the head of the Institute of Molecular Pathobiochemistry, Experimental Gene Therapy and Clinical Chemistry (IFMPEGKC) at the RWTH University Hospital Aachen. His primary focus is on analyzing the TGF-β/BMP and PDGF signaling pathways in the pathogenesis of various diseases. Prof. Weiskirchen maintains a variety of national and international collaborations that focus on the molecular aspects of disease formation and therapy. Additionally, his work focuses on identifying and evaluating novel biomarkers. Learn more about him on ORCID or from the institute.
A good academic paper, to Prof. Weiskirchen, should be one that tackles a relevant and appropriate topic or question. It should maintain a clear focus on the research problem being investigated and take into consideration the intended audience. The wording and presentation of results should adhere to a clear and logical structure.
There is no doubt that a manuscript must provide a clear and comprehensive account of the research that it is based on. Prof. Weiskirchen thinks reporting guidelines serve as a valuable tool for editors, reviewers and readers to assess the quality of the work. He shares that while numerous guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of medical research, many journals still allow the publication of research articles that do not adhere to these guidelines. He uses the field of biomedical research as an example, “The scientific community has struggled to address the persistent issue of cell line misidentification, a problem that has been recognized for decades and has led to inaccurate conclusions and irreproducible in vitro experiments. The negligent or intentional withholding of information, such as the sources or catalog numbers of reagents, is a critical factor that can hinder the reproducibility of experiments. Therefore, it is imperative that reporting guidelines are followed in all published papers in clinical and basic science.”
Speaking of the process of coming up with a topic that highly interests Prof. Weiskirchen, he shares that most of his ideas stem from discussions with his team members. He and his team usually have a clear scientific focus on a specific research area, namely the pathogenesis of hepatic diseases, which leads them to discuss various scientific projects. Through the discussions, they formulate specific research questions that they then experimentally investigate. The results of their investigations are organized into individual sections, which serve as the foundation for drafting their academic papers.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Ara A. Salibian
Dr. Ara A. Salibian is a board-certified plastic surgeon and fellowship-trained microsurgeon specializing in general reconstructive surgery and reconstructive microsurgery. His clinical interest is in the entire spectrum of breast reconstruction such as implant-based procedures, with a particular focus on microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction. He also has a specific interest in extremity reconstruction and surgical treatments for lymphedema, including microsurgical approaches such as lymphovenous bypass (LVB) and vascularized lymph node transplants (VLNT). His research focuses on improving outcomes in breast reconstruction with both implant-based and autologous (microsurgical free tissue transfer) techniques. Dr. Salibian has published and presented extensively in the areas of nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral breast reconstruction, single-stage and tissue-expander based breast reconstruction and microvascular breast reconstruction. He also has an interest in using advanced imaging technologies, such as ultra-high frequency ultrasound, to improve outcomes in reconstructive microsurgery and supermicrosurgery for lymphedema. Learn more about Dr. Salibian here.
“Preparation of a scientific manuscript is a multi-faceted endeavor,” says Dr. Salibian. The goals of a paper are to clearly communicate with readers the purpose, methods and results of the investigation that had been performed by the authors as well as its relevance within the scope of the current literature on the topic. He further points out that it is important to have a firm understanding of prior studies on the topic in order to appropriately explain the utility of the new findings to others. Additionally, it is critical to succinctly and clearly described findings both in text as well as in tables and graphically to allow readers to understand the data. Finally, drawing appropriate conclusions that are simply communicated can help others understand the utility of the investigation within their own practice.
In Dr. Salibian’s opinion, critical writing requires the understanding of the relevant topic from multiple different perspectives in order to be able to provide logical conclusions for the data at hand within the scope of the available evidence of the topic. He emphasizes that critical writing requires an in-depth and complete understanding of the evidence in order to be able to appropriately interpret and communicate one’s point of view.
Speaking of reporting guidelines (e.g. TREND and CARE), Dr. Salibian thinks they act as a tool to assist authors with the manuscript writing. Guidelines provide information to help authors ensure that all the appropriate information has been collected and communicated appropriately to readership to create a well-written manuscript. While not every checkbox in a list might be applicable to every individual paper, the guidelines serve as important tools to help standardize the efficient communication of accurate scientific information.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Max S. Mano
Dr. Mano is a Medical Oncologist specialized in breast cancer. After spending some time training and working abroad in Belgium and UK, he has been practicing in Sao Paulo, Brazil, since 2008. His area of interest in clinical practice and research is breast cancer, though he has a parallel interest in the field of Medical Leadership – having some teaching and research activity mainly in connection with the Academy of Leadership Sciences Switzerland (ALLS). He currently holds a position as National Breast Cancer Leader at Grupo Oncoclínicas, and he is a member of the Breast Cancer Committee of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) – his research engine. He also holds a position as a professor at the Postgraduate Program of Sírio-Libanês Hospital, where he mentors Master and Doctorate students. Though he still works with clinical trials, his main research focus in breast cancer has shifted towards patient survivorship experience and quality of life studies. Connect with Dr. Mano on LinkedIn and X (Twitter).
“Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort, and it requires full concentration, which is a luxury product for practicing physicians during their work time,” says Dr. Mano, who usually writes from home on weekends, but he thinks he does this because he takes pleasure from it. He adds, “Medicine doesn’t give you much room for creativity – because following institutional and international guidelines is almost always better for patients. Research, however, does – as does writing scientific essays in general. Writing is a solitary activity, but the pleasure of starting something from scratch to achieve something meaningful is unmatchable.”
Science advances rapidly day by day. Dr. Mano admits that it is very challenging to keep the research up-to-date as information is generated and circulated so fast that it has been hard to keep track even for a subspecialist. His advice to physicians struggling with this problem are as follows: 1) focus on your (single) tumor type of expertise; 2) learn to select only meaningful information that you really need to acquire; 3) learn to identify good sources of information (because they are “prefiltered” by other trained professionals); and 4) for your research and scientific writing, learn how to select only the specific and most meaningful information that you will need for a certain project.
Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Dr. Mano comments that though this mainly concerns original research, he thinks there is a lot more transparency with current data sharing policies – especially for practice-changing research. Furthermore, he is not aware of any significant risks for researchers and companies that have decided to share their data with the scientific community. He hopes this tendency will continue to evolve in coming years.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Benjamin Gadomski
Dr. Ben Gadomski is an Associate Professor at Colorado State University in Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Trine University and his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Colorado State University (CSU), USA. Prior to teaching at CSU, he had developed and patented spinal implants to treat damaged and degenerated spinal conditions. He has research experience in the areas of orthopaedic biomechanics including finite element modelling of biological tissues, experimental testing of spinal implants, and the investigation of low-gravity conditions on skeletal re-modelling and fracture healing. His most recent research involves preclinical investigation of medical devices for regulatory approval. Learn more about Dr. Gadomski from here.
Speaking of the essential elements of a good academic paper, Dr. Gadomski thinks the most important concern is being novel while also building upon the wealth of knowledge that already exists. “Rarely does a single paper or study change our fundamental thinking about a topic. Rather, it takes many individual studies to confirm a scientific theory,” expresses he.
Dr. Gadomski agrees that a good writing takes time and attention. A high-quality paper is not written quickly. It is important to schedule time specifically for this purpose. A good paper typically looks nothing like its first draft, as he points out, and he always advises his students to begin writing early to avoid crunch time. And as many others have stated, academic writing is a critical component for dissemination of the findings. He emphasizes that research needs to undergo peer scrutiny and be held to rigorous standards to ensure scientific facts are published and disinformation is screened out.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Mimi M. Kim
Dr. Kim is a research scientist with a B.A. and M.Sc. from Columbia University, New York, US. She completed a Ph.D. in Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a postdoctoral fellowship at the Department of Psychiatry, at Duke University Medical Center. Her postdoctoral research focused on examining co-occurring drug addiction and severe mental illness, and particularly, the implementation of psychiatric advanced directives. She has over 20 years of experience in leading the strategic planning and execution of complex health research studies/programs by leveraging evidence-based practices and focusing on rigorous research methodologies. Most recently, she developed and led teams of scientists to develop and deliver numerous successful regulatory applications focused on improving population health. She has robust regulatory expertise and is a strategic, analytic leader who is well-versed in real-world evidence and health outcomes research. Connect with Dr. Kim on LinkedIn.
ATM: From your point of view, what authors have to bear in mind during preparation of a paper?
Dr. Kim: The key guiding principles I would advise authors to anchor to in the preparation of a manuscript are:
- Methodological rigor with detailed reporting in the spirit complete transparency;
- Pursuit of submissions with a commitment to contributing strong science to the evidence base to provide insight to scientific peers rather than the self-pursuit of increasing the number of publications;
- Authoring papers is not an easy process; therefore, there are no short cuts. Our scientific commitment should always be in empirically-based messaging without taking any liberties in interpretation beyond what the data are truly suggesting; and
- In some cases, an inconclusive finding can be of great value. Do not immediately dismiss such a conclusion because the value of your conclusion can depend on the existing evidence – what is known and what remains to be known.
ATM: What role does academic writing play in science?
Dr. Kim: I was taught early on in my scientific career that we have an obligation to disseminate strong science to the community. This is my commitment today and I honor that commitment by authoring papers and reviewing submissions for several peer-reviewed journals with an unbiased, critical lens. I apply this commitment to not only the science of others, but also my own. Academic writing is also a specific skillset that has no ceiling to improvement. I firmly believe that we can always challenge ourselves to raise the bar to disseminate stronger science.
ATM: From an author’s perspective, do you think it is important to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE and CONSORT) during preparation of manuscripts?
Dr. Kim: I absolutely agree with the criticality of following reporting guidelines. These guidelines have been created to increase transparency and scientific merit. Consequently, these are resources available to us to increase the quality and integrity of our scientific efforts. Following these reporting guidelines is undebatable, in my view.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)
Eric I. Chang
Dr. Eric I. Chang, MD, is currently a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at the Institute for Advanced Reconstruction at the Plastic Surgery Center, USA. Prior to joining this practice, he was in practice for many years as an Associate Professor in the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, where he also served as the Program Director for the Advanced Reconstructive Microsurgery Fellowship. During his course of career, he has treated countless patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer, head, and neck cancer, sarcoma, and melanoma as well as patients suffering from lymphedema. Dr. Chang was selected for the prestigious accelerated 7-year BA/MD program at Rutgers College. After graduating summa cum laude from this highly competitive program, he continued with his general surgery residency at Rutgers Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, and devoted an additional two years to basic science research in microvascular tissue engineering and stem cell biology at New York University School of Medicine and Stanford University School of Medicine, for which he won multiple awards from the American College of Surgeons, the Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons, and the Plastic Surgery Research Council. Dr. Chang also completed a Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA, and a Reconstructive Microsurgery Fellowship at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. His current research interests include clinical outcomes for breast reconstruction, lower extremity limb salvage, and lymphedema.
When constructing an academic paper, Dr. Chang thinks the most important concepts to keep in mind are who the readership would be and how the paper would benefit that particular readership. “The publications ideally would be interesting and help improve and change clinical practice for the benefit of our patients,” shares he.
In the process of academic writing, peer review is important to ensure the writing is critical. He points out that the reviewers themselves must be competent, experience, and unbiased. As a reviewer for many different journals, he holds his papers to the same high standards that he applies to the other papers that he is reviewing. Last but not least, he highlights that reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT or PRISMA, are of great significance to make sure that the studies being conducted and the resulting publications adhere to the same standards.
(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)