In 2022, many APM 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 (2022)

Eun Sun Kim, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Republic of Korea

François Blot, Intensive Care Unit, Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France

Nicholas P. Jennings, Vrije Universiteit Brussel & Ghent University, Belgium

Hyun Joon Shin, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital, USA

Fabian M. Johnston, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Kwok Ying Chan, Grantham Hospital, Hong Kong

Giulia Sapuppo, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Italy

Jaap Zindler, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Netherlands

Toru Ishikawa, Saiseikai Niigata Hospital, Japan

Víctor Moreno-Torres, La Rioja International University, Spain

Min Cheol Chang, Yeungnam University, Republic of Korea

Thomas J. Miner, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, USA/a>

Sang-Yeon Suh, Dongguk University, South Korea/a>

Rima Saad, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Heemoon Lee, Bucheon Sejong Hospital, Republic of Korea

Jared R. Robbins, University of Arizona, USA

Masahiko Sumitani, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Japan

Chetna Malhotra, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore

Eva Katharina Masel, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Outstanding Author

Eun Sun Kim

Dr. Eun Sun Kim, MD, PhD is an Associate Professor at Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Republic of Korea. She is an intensive care specialist and has worked as a pulmonologist. In 2015, she became the first hospitalist in South Korea, where she still works today. Although she is continuing her research in respiratory and intensive care medicine, recently, she is conducting research with a more focus on Hospital Medicine. Her research focuses primarily on improving patient outcomes and improving the quality of care in a real patient clinical setting.

In terms of the essential elements of a good academic paper, Dr. Kim believes that the most important thing when conducting research with it in mind is whether there is “something new” that has not existed before, as it can hint that the paper is likely to be a good one. In addition, the purpose of the study and its results should be meaningful to the reader. “Especially in clinical studies, there must be a message to convey not only to the patient but also to the medical staff, even if the results differ from what was expected.” Dr. Kim states. Moreover, a good academic paper should be written clearly and concisely in a logical flow. As Dr. Kim points out, it does not matter if your paper has important and great content if your readers cannot get it right.

To prevent biases in one’s writing, Dr. Kim believes clear identification and frank descriptions of the research setting, results, and limitations is of utmost importance in avoiding bias when writing a manuscript. Another good way to do so is to get feedback from colleagues not involved in the research.

For Dr. Kim, even though it takes a lot of energy and effort to get research started, writing a paper can be a difficult but important and fascinating process that serves as the finale of the process. “Writing an academic paper can be said to be the work of summarizing the process and results of all the research so far and releasing the data that was limited to me to the outside world,” she says, “So many people around the world who read that paper can be influenced and communicate with each other, which I think is an important process.”

With data sharing being prevalent in recent years, Dr. Kim thinks it is important to share research data, as she believes an important and fundamental aspect of any scientific paper is whether the results are reliable and reproducible. “Because it is difficult for researchers to honestly analyze and present results without any bias, it is important to share data to ensure the accuracy of the results and whether the results can be replicated in other clinical settings,” she explains. In addition, Dr. Kim thinks that data sharing can advance subsequent research based on the results and limitations of that study.

(By Christopher Hau, Brad Li)

François Blot

Dr. François Blot was born in 1964 in Paris. His specialty is in intensive care. He worked as an intensivist and managed the ICU until 2020 at Gustave Roussy Hospital, a comprehensive cancer center near Paris. His research topics were catheter-related infections (Lancet-1999, etc.), ventilator-associated pneumonias (AJRCCM, Intensive Care Med...), tracheostomy in critically ill patients (with the first French randomized multicenter study, Intensive Care Med, Chest ...), and ICU admission criteria for cancer patients (Crit Care Med, Eur J Cancer...). With Giorgio Conti, they published the main French book on ICU for cancer patients in 2004. Since 2014, he has chaired the hospital's ethics committee and he is working extensively with the palliative care team on the Decisional-Aid Form (Annals of Palliative Medicine-2022), ethics and Covid (BMJSPC), ethics and cancer (Bull Cancer) and etc. Current researches focus on Advance Directives, the future French law for EOL and assisted dying, aging and nutrition in cancer patients, etc.

To Dr. Blot, the most commonly encountered difficulty in academic writing is that the level of scientific and ethical requirements has increased considerably over the past 30 years. This makes it more difficult to publish articles, but it is a “healthy difficulty”. People could no longer publish rough articles from the 70s or 80s. The real question is the sacredness of the Evidence-Based Medicine, which has its own methodological biases and even conflicts of interest, and yet, is sometimes abusively, the holly grail. A good cohort study asking a real question is often preferable.

Science advances rapidly day by day. All of Dr. Blot’s research ideas were born from personal reflections and from his routine practice. He says, “Where I lacked the answer, I launched a study”. Thus, for Differential Time to Positivity in ILCs, direct Gram-stain examination in pneumonias, early tracheostomy in ventilated patients, and the Decisional aid form - in each case, his prior knowledge of the literature was correct, but incomplete. He completed it extensively when setting up the study.

Occupied with clinical and academic duties, how does Dr. Blot allocate time to write papers? He explains, “During my life as an intensivist, I had to work nights and weekends to write and publish. But we had a research culture in the department. And the main areas of our daily work were subject to protocols, which made it easy to write the final paper. In addition, all the studies put in place were initially constructed as a paper to be published: introduction, materials and methods, and part of the discussion were already written. In my life as an ethicist today, nights and weekends are still used to write, and the culture of research remains the key too.”

Lastly, Dr. Blot believes that seeking institutional review board (IRB) approval for original research is not only legally essential, but is above all an ethical culture and respect for the sick person that is at stake. For him, ethics is even more powerful than the law.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Nicholas P. Jennings

Nicholas P. Jennings, RN, MPH, PhD is from and resides in Trinidad and Tobago. He is a consultant and independent researcher in Social Health Sciences and affiliated with the End-of-Life Care Research Group at Vrije Universiteit Brussel in Brussels, Belgium and St. George’s University School of Graduate Studies in Grenada, West Indies. Dr. Jennings’ research is focused on Public Health which relates to palliative and end-of-life care and treatment in his native country and other Caribbean nations. His research interests include availability of and access to care in communities, safe use of opioids for medical use, education and training of care providers including home and family carers, and the biomedical ethical issues involved in providing palliative and end-of-life care to people who need it. For more information about Dr. Jennings and his research, you may visit his team's page and ResearchGate.

The most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing can vary among different writers. To Dr. Jennings, academic writing can be an isolating process, and it can present additional challenges to researchers in countries or regions lacking the necessary resources to facilitate such endeavors, e.g., local institutions with a culture for research and knowhow in writing academic papers for publication, and experienced people who can mentor young researchers. An early challenge for Dr. Jennings was the confidence or lack thereof that he could write an academic paper that could be accepted by an international journal for publication.

How to avoid biases in one’s writing? Dr. Jennings believes that apart from the researcher’s understanding of the scientific process, working in a group or seeking advice from a senior colleague can be both a humbling and enlightening experience. Humbling because researchers become vulnerable to criticism when working in a group of colleagues; however, trusted colleagues are invaluable as their contribution and feedback are critical. Not only for a study’s protocol, but also toward a draft manuscript. He adds that the more one works with or alongside experienced researchers, the better and more diligent one can become at understanding and anticipating where biases might occur and thusly how to avoid them.

Aside from the difficulties that one will encounter, dedication of time and efforts into a study is unimaginable. When talking about motivations for academic writing, Dr. Jennings says, “Goals or deadlines can be motivating factors for some, but a source for my motivation stemmed from going into uncharted territory. There is little information describing the circumstances of dying from life-limiting conditions in Trinidad and Tobago, and the methods used for my ambitious research projects, i.e., place of death using administrative data and a mortality follow-back survey, had not been used before and posed some consequent obstacles. Obstacles, I was adamant to overcome. In retrospect, I think a combination of serendipity and curiosity were my main motivators.”

Lastly, Dr. Jennings explains the importance of data sharing in his community, “Healthcare research can be considered a luxury, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, or countries that lack a research culture, where the necessary human resource, facilities, funding, and political will are lacking or absent. Under such conditions, secondary data are often incomplete and/or inaccessible to researchers. For information that is public, I think it is important that they collaborate and share research data (including their own), study methods, experiences and ideas, e.g., on how to maneuver the complexities of successfully doing research in a resource-poor context. This can be especially helpful to independent researchers like me.”

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Hyun Joon Shin

Dr. Hyun Joon Shin, MD, ScD, MPH, MS, is a Chief of Cardiology at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital, Jamaica Plain, MA, USA. His research is focused on preventive cardiology and clinical epidemiology. His research on nutrition epidemiology received full attention from many media internationally, where he found the association between instant noodle intake and increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome among women (Instant Noodles Associated With Heart Risk | Time). Dr. Shin set up the world record of the most medical board certifications in 2017 with 10 medical boards. Here are some pages where you can find more information about Dr. Shin: Doximity, Korea Biomedical Review, and World Record Academy.

For papers using epidemiologic methods and data, in Dr. Shin's opinion, a good academic paper should be able to show the robustness of statistical results to prove that the conclusion is valid. The essential elements would be trying to minimize the bias by using robust statistical and epidemiologic methods and checking and dealing with common sources of bias.

When selecting evidence for synthesis and analysis, Dr. Shin usually starts by reviewing the current guidelines (such as society guidelines) and recent review articles for the most updated clinical consensus/recommendations. He will then review the original articles from high-impact journals to get up-to-date knowledge which could have not been reflected to the current clinical consensus document. With this process, authors would not miss the forest for the trees.

On the other hand, Dr. Shin thinks it might be helpful for authors to share research data so that the results can be reproduced and checked, and different hypotheses can be tested from the shared data.

Dr. Shin uses his off hours to conduct research and write papers. Thanks to his excellent colleagues and co-authors, he is able to do research while practicing full-time. Without Prof. Young-Geun Choi’s top-notch statistical analysis and Dr. Ronald Chow’s excellent writing skills, it would have been impossible for them to write the COVID-19 paper series.

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Fabian M. Johnston

Fabian M. Johnston, M.D., M.H.S. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Surgery at Johns Hopkins University, where he also serves as Chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal Surgical Oncology and Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Surgery. He completed his residency at Washington University in St. Louis and his Complex General Surgical Oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins University. He is R01 funded via both the NCI & NIMHD and has authored over 170 publications and 14 book chapters. His research interest includes the utilization of highly innovative and novel strategies for the implementation of patient-centered models of care to improve the utilization of palliative care amongst patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Through this, he hopes to advance effective care to lessen suffering in vulnerable oncology patients and families while simultaneously leading the improvement of healthcare quality, costs, experiences, and outcomes.

In Dr. Johnston’s view, academic writing allows the researcher and the academic community to share our knowledge, ideas and findings with our communities and relevant stakeholders. The importance of academic writing lies in the need to disseminate information to keep all relevant constituencies informed.

As for how to ensure one's writing is critical, Dr. Johnston believes it is simply about practice. We need to write a lot and understand the need to evolve in the art and embrace the inherent dynamism in the work we do.

As an author, Dr. Johnston thinks it is important to follow reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA) during the preparation of manuscripts. These guidelines provide a structure that allows authors to better compare their work and understand the outputs and help with relevancy in their environments and minimize bias.

Lastly, Dr. Johnston emphasizes the word “persist”. He says, “In the wake of COVID, we have all encountered more in our lives that compound on the work we do and make it harder. Just persist and persevere.”

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Kwok Ying Chan

Dr. Kwok Ying Chan, MD, is now a chief of the Palliative Medical Unit at Grantham Hospital in Hong Kong. His research interests include early integrated, haematology and renal palliative care. He has published more than 30 research studies in various renowned journals including Lancet Haematology. His recent project is focused on young oncology palliative care patients by early integrated and enhanced psychosocial care model with multifaceted approach, in view of the more complicated nature of young age and the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Dr. Chan will lead a special series for organ failure disease opted for palliative care, with a focus on addressing the gaps and the inequalities to this group of patients. You may find more about Dr. Chan’s work through his ResearchGate and connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Chan’s opinion, writing about science has a crucial role in bridging the communication gap between the public and scientists. By incorporating scientific knowledge into interesting writing, writers may help society. In general, it can impart knowledge and educate scientific principles, provide up-to-date information that keeps people informed, and persuade individuals to adopt new perspectives.

Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Dr. Chan believes the first and foremost thing is that the evidence should be balanced. This calls for writers to combine data from multiple sources in the body paragraph. They can use a variety of techniques, such as paraphrasing, summarizing (which includes synthesizing), and direct quoting to convey evidence in an essay. Writing needs to be a balance of proof from other people's information and one’s personal perspective and experience when examining, understanding and utilizing research on a topic. For him, synthesizing is a sophisticated technique which can be employed to create the body paragraphs. Writers must assemble their ideas while supporting them with the comparable and occasionally opposing opinions of others. Synthesizing involves a number of steps, such as trying to “number your sets” so as to have a strong logical order to develop an argument, connecting similar ideas to create “sets” of information from each source, drafting a paragraph from notes, and reading widely from texts on the subject of the paragraph as a whole. He adds, “Please try not to focus too much on specific authors. Just think about your situation from the standpoint of ‘many authors’. All these could strengthen your case and give it a more even weight.”

The time it takes to write an article will vary depending on the article type one intends to write. Typically, Dr. Chan will create a few bullet points during his downtime and begin writing the paper a few days later when everything is prepared. He would emphasize his draft manuscript's outline and “selling points” more. Additional conversations with co-authors or experts in the field will enhance one’s article and undoubtedly cut down on writing time. An original or review article, in his experience, often takes 3 to 9 months to create, but other kinds of articles might only take 2-4 weeks.

Finally, Dr. Chan points out that Conflict of Interest (COI) is a crucial and fundamental aspect of any scientific paper to determine whether the findings can be trusted and repeated. However, it is equally critical to stress that COI is a circumstance, not bad behavior. Recognizing a COI does not equate to admitting guilt for past wrongdoing. The fact that the same person is active in two conflicting interests—one of which may undermine the motivation of the other and bring bias into his or her professional judgment in research—is a crucial aspect of this predicament.

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Giulia Sapuppo

Dr. Guilia Sapuppo is a specialist at Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy. She graduated in Medicine and Surgery at the University of Catania in 2011 with 110/110 and honors. Her degree thesis concerned Thyroid Cancer in Thyroglossal Duct Cysts, a clinical work published on JCEM in the same year. After her graduation, she entered the post-graduate school in Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Catania Medical School and carefully attended the training course acquiring extensive clinical and scientific skills. She also had a short experience in Dr. M. Tuttle’s laboratory, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, USA. She is the author and co-author of several papers concerning thyroid cancer and endocrine tumors. She also participated as a sub-investigator in several cancer trials. In all her training, Dr. Sapuppo focused her clinical interest on thyroid diseases (ultrasound diagnosis, FNA, interpretation of cytological slides, thyroid cancer) with a special interest in endocrine tumors. For more information about Dr. Sapuppo, you may visit her MioDottore and personal page.

To Dr. Sapuppo, centering the focus of interest for possible reviewers and making the article as original as possible are the most common difficulties in academic writing. She emphasizes that sometimes the choice of the scientific journal is of fundamental importance in order not to waste time formatting the work in the required way. She happened to send a case report several times because it was not of interest to the individual journals.

In Dr. Sapuppo’s opinion, the ability to synthesize, present the data correctly, and capture the interest of the reader through well-made tables and figures are the qualities an author should possess.

Lastly, Dr. Sapuppo points out that institutional review board (IRB) approval has been required by all the major scientific journals for several years, as well as informed consent. Articles should apply for IRB approval so that there are no ethical issues when the article is accepted.

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Jaap Zindler

Dr. Jaap Zindler, MD, PhD, is a 42-year-old radiation-oncologist, combining patient care with research for patients with brain tumors, head & neck and skin cancer, and affiliated with Department of Radiation Oncology, Haaglanden Medical Center, the Hague, the Netherlands. He is also a Principal Investigator of two prospective randomized trials and an author of 35 peer-reviewed papers. He has authored multiple papers as first and last author. Many of them have been published in journals with high impact factors, such as the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). Dr. Zindler’s H-index is 20 and his articles have more than 900 citations. He is currently a supervisor of 2 PhD students. You may find more information of Dr. Zindler through his home page, ResearchGate, and LinkedIn.

In Dr. Zindler’s view, phase III randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials published in high impact journals can be regarded as good academic papers.

To ensure his writing is up-to-date, Dr. Zindler focuses on reading milestone papers and the most relevant journals in the field of radiation oncology. He has a focus on stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for brain metastases and proton therapy (PT) for both head and neck and brain tumors. Combining SRT and PT with immunotherapy is also his field of interest.

Dr. Zindler believes that sharing of research data is crucial, but data are only relevant if they are of high quality, structured, and prospectively collected in the real world. Randomized trials are especially useful to determine the benefit of treatments. Publishing with open access, and anonymously sharing of the real world and trial data afterwards are important.

“Academic writing takes a lot of time and efforts. Reflection on my results and thereby finding clues to improve my treatment for the patients are two of the motivations that keep me writing,” says Dr. Zindler.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Toru Ishikawa

Toru Ishikawa, MD, PhD is currently the General Manager of Gastroenterology in Saiseikai Niigata Hospital, Japan from 2008. He was a Resident in Niigata University Hospital (1992-1993), a Resident in Sinrakuen Hospital (1993-1994), a medical staff in Saiseikai Niigata Hospital (1994-1995), a Resident in the Third Department of Internal Medicine in Niigata University Hospital (1995-2002), and then a Head doctor of Gastroenterology in Saiseikai Niigata Hospital (2002-2007). Dr. Ishikawa’s interests include hepatocellular carcinoma, liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, hepatitis and interventional radiology.

Dr. Ishikawa believes that excellent academic papers are those that are conformed to actual clinical practice and can immediately contribute to the prognosis of patients. Medical professionals must take on new challenges. Even if the resulting data are negative, it should still be shared with the world if it contributes to the development of medical science and medical care. Writing papers is a good way to gain clinical experiences even if they are only case reports. Clinical practice and thesis are not incompatible. He is convinced that both practices bring vitality to clinical practice, which will benefit each individual patient.

How to avoid bias in one’s writing? Dr. Ishikawa says, “If you cannot find the answer to your clinical question in a textbook or in someone else's paper, then that will be your research topic. It is important to objectively determine the differences between your research topic and existing papers. It should also reflect the opinions of non-experts to maintain objectivity.”

While academic writing takes a lot of time and effort, it is defined as "the intellectual effort to understand the unknown.” Clinical practice and writing papers are not in conflicts; clinical practice generates vitality, and this vitality is the starting point for the writing of papers and the development of academic. Dr. Ishikawa believes that this will ultimately benefit each patient and this is the motivation that keeps him writing.

In Dr. Ishikawa’s opinion, presentation of research protocol and evidence is important to ensure transparency in medical research. To understand exactly how one’s research was conducted and what results were obtained, and to assess the impact of research results on actual medical care, accurate reporting is necessary. The introduction of the guidelines undoubtedly has a significant impact on ensuring accuracy and transparency in reporting medical research. Following the guidelines will improve the quality of the report and be easier for the reviewers to make a fair and more accurate evaluation.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Víctor Moreno-Torres

Dr. Víctor Moreno-Torres, MD, PhD, is an Internal Medicine specialist from Spain. To date, he is one of the research directors in the La Rioja International University (UNIR). His field of clinical expertise and research is systemic autoimmune diseases, including Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Antiphospholipid syndrome, Sjögren’s disease and systemic vasculitides among others. However, considering the impact of the pandemic and the pathophysiology of severe COVID-19 which is equivalent to certain autoimmune conditions, he has focused on SARS-CoV-2 infection and other infectious diseases in critical care patients during the past three years. Due to these contributions, he has recently received the Prof. Jaime Merino Award presented by the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine.

When it comes to the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, Dr. Moreno-Torres lists the following: being able to keep technical quality and literature update, as well as scientific rigor, without losing clinical skill or humanism as a doctor. He firmly believes that clinical research, the ability to propose hypotheses and asking the future needs of certain conditions result in better care for patients.

In Dr. Moreno-Torres’s opinion, it is crucial to consider other researchers, reviewers, or the editors’ opinions since they are responsible for evaluating one’s writing. However, he believes that putting yourself in the place of other doctors and readers is much more relevant. Hence, other clinicians are probably considering your findings, opinions and references to guide their future investigations or more importantly, their clinical approach to a patient.

Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates Dr. Moreno-Torres to do so? He shares with us, “On the one hand, I consider medical and translational research very enriching from a scientific point of view. On the other hand, I believe that clinical research probably makes us better doctors since it forces us to keep up to date, puts us in touch with other teams and specialists, and it allows us to consider and discover the patients’ future needs. All of the aforementioned will therefore benefit the management and care of our patients.”

From an author’s perspective, Dr. Moreno-Torres highlights the importance of reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE). Following guidelines allows us to read results, strengths, limitations and relevance of studies in a much clearer way since the same methodological procedures have been followed for each study type. In addition, these guidelines are also an excellent tool during the design and validation process of one’s research. However, he believes that these guidelines do not have to be always followed. Considering the nature of the medical research, these recommendations should sometimes be more flexible.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Min Cheol Chang

Dr. Min Cheol Chang, MD, is an Associate Professor in Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea. He is a specialist in diagnosis and treatment of neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Recently, his research is focused on the application of artificial intelligence in the field of neuromusculoskeletal disorders. So far, he has published more than 300 academic papers. Also, he currently serves on the board of several academic societies related to neuromusculoskeletal disorders, pain, and rehabilitation. You may find more information about Dr. Chang through ResearchGate.

What are the essential elements of a good academic paper? Dr. Chang shares his point of view, “For physicians, both researching and writing papers are to objectively prove the impression obtained from treating patients in the clinic and write them down. I posit that it is a good academic paper if the experiences accumulated while treating patients clinically and the impressions obtained from it are sufficiently reflected in the academic paper. In addition, it must logically and clearly demonstrate that this clinical impression is correct. Ergo, I believe that the essential elements of good academic papers are accumulated clinical experiences of physicians, impressions obtained from those experiences, and logical evidence. In other words, to write a good clinical paper, it is necessary to meticulously diagnose and treat patients diligently and thoroughly study the research methodology. Moreover, I surmise reading humanities books for logical writing can be personally helpful.”

Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. To select the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis, Dr. Chang suggests authors participate in several academic conferences, and acquire research ideas and clinical evidence from the presentations of other researchers. In addition, he obtains clinical and research information from various journals and case conferences in the hospital, and applies these information to his research and clinical practice. Furthermore, he reflects on the information obtained from these various sources in the paper when performing academic writing. Additionally, when writing a paper, a thorough review of related literature must be conducted to collect and determine the level of evidence. To accurately determine the evidence, Dr. Chang recommends writing a systematic review based on past papers that have studied the related topics. Then, the evidence related to the topic will be structurally organized in one’s head.

The burden of being a scientist and doctor at the same time could be heavy. How does Dr. Chang allocate time to write papers? He explains, “You should utilize your spare time as much as possible. I write a paper in my spare time when there is no treatment or procedure session. I try to fill most of my vacant time by writing a paper, especially when I do not treat patients, e.g., before starting patients' treatment in the morning, during lunch break, and when there are no patients.”

Furthermore, as an author, Dr. Chang thinks that data sharing should be more active. A large volume of data collected from various institutions allow for more accurate results than data collected by individuals. In addition, the accuracy of the study can be improved because the study results can be double-checked through data sharing. Moreover, even with the same data, one can explore the data from a different point of view and study different topics. In conclusion, data sharing should be activated since it can increase the utilization of data.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Thomas J. Miner/strong>

Thomas J Miner, MD, is Professor of Surgery and Chief of Surgical Oncology at the Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, USA. He received his medical degree from Brown University, and completed a residency in general surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a fellowship in surgical oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Miner is currently Chief of Surgical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. His research activities include patient centered outcomes following surgery for advanced malignancy for palliative and curative intent. His publications include many of the largest published reports on outcomes following palliative surgical procedures. His efforts in surgical oncology have been directed towards promoting surgical decision making based on patient outcome data, teaching effective decision models for considering palliative procedures, and emphasizing symptom management and quality of life in the surgical patient with advanced cancer.

For authors with specific and sometimes narrow areas of interests, finding subtle differences in the data is often fascinating. Especially in Dr. Miner’s field, surgical palliative care, where education of the community is an important component of their work, it can be challenging to effectively emphasize core components of the field (sometimes not even completely grasped by reviewers) while still putting forward advances from nuanced or newer ideas.

Furthermore, Dr. Miner points out authors need to disclose Conflict of Interest, for obvious reasons, especially when involving financial issues. He also highlights that conflicts from active and past grants and biases often displayed in previous publications and presentations should be recognized by reviewers, panels, and committees. However, at times, he wonders if we run the risk of limiting new ideas by “established” work (that sometimes later proves to be wrong).

Dr. Miner finds academic writing very enjoyable and rewarding. He says, “It provides me with the opportunity and time to really think through a topic and establish a position that I can stand behind.”

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Sang-Yeon Suh

Prof. Sang-Yeon Suh, MD, PhD, is working as a Full Professor at Dongguk Medical School and a Chief of the Department of Family Medicine at Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Republic of Korea. She had her sabbatical stay at Duke Comprehensive Cancer Care Research Program, USA. Her research areas are prognostication in palliative care field and advance care planning. Her academic interests in prognostication include novel parameters, serial changes, prognostic scores and prognostic confidence. As a clinical investigator, she has been grant-supported multiple times by the Korean government, the Korean academic society, and the Japanese hospice foundation. For international collaboration, she was the principal investigator (PI) of Korea for the East Asian collaborative Study to Elucidate the Dying process. Currently, she serves as a PI of Korea for Comparative study of development of Advance Care Planning in Asia Pacific region, and prognostic communication in Asia. You may connect with Prof. Suh through Facebook and Instagram.

Prof. Suh thinks a novel and practical research question (RQ) is a prerequisite for a good academic paper. Sound methodology and relevant statistical model fitting are also needed to support the study hypothesis. Authors should organize significant findings from data to prove the RQ. Authors need to conduct a thorough analysis and appropriate interpretation of the data to reach the research aim. The importance of scientific writing cannot be overemphasized. Writing is similar to a presentation to persuade reviewers and readers. A good academic paper contributes to the progress of the academic field and enhances the core value of the field as well. Frankly speaking, a good academic paper should add new and useful views for readers.

Prof. Suh believes RQ is the critical key point when it comes to evidence synthesis. Authors should keep the RQ in mind consistently throughout analysis and synthesis. She shares a tip she likes to use: ‘Thesis-antithesis-synthesis’. Among research findings, there are usually something consistent with previous studies [thesis], but authors should focus on something new and unique [antithesis] for their studies. Therefore, authors need to formulate a conclusion [synthesis] to organize all findings and rationale. For selecting the appropriate evidence, it is helpful for authors to create RQ as specific as they can. As for her, discussing with colleagues always extended her insights. If authors compare their results with previous studies keenly, they could find something notable.

In addition, Prof. Suh found the reporting guidelines to be quite useful. Because all guidelines suggest meticulous checkpoints, and those were derived from a consensus of experts. Some journals recommend following guidelines before submission. Otherwise, reviewers may also point this out. Thus, following those guidelines would enhance the quality of manuscripts.

“What you are writing can be a landmark of your field,” says Prof. Suh.

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Rima Saad

Dr. Rima Saad Rassam obtained her Master and PhD degrees in Nursing Sciences from Hariri School of Nursing at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. She is a Certified Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurse (CPHON) with 20 years of experience. Over the years, she has developed strong clinical, education and research skills through her various nursing roles. She worked at the Children's Cancer Institute in Lebanon, where she participated in the development of nursing practice and education in pediatrics, oncology, and palliative care locally and regionally. She recently joined St. Jude Children's Research Hospital as a Global Nursing Project Coordinator. She completed two research residencies at the University of Michigan and Harvard University in 2019. Her research focuses on studying pediatric palliative care from the parent’s perspective to uncover potential areas for improving palliative care in limited-resource settings. You may connect with Dr. Saad through LinkedIn.

Dr. Saad believes an important approach to ensure one’s writing is up-to-date is to maintain a dynamic and timely connection with the practice needs. This requires clinical awareness combined with a spirit of inquiry constantly striving to advance knowledge and bring new insights. Particularly, in Pediatric Palliative Care (PPC), clinical observation and research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries underscore the pivotal role of parents in delivering care, yet their information about the care remains underexplored. Bringing this information to light has opened new potentials for addressing the resources gap in providing PPC in these regions. The clinical field constantly fuels current writing.

Dr. Saad stresses that data sharing infers transparency in research. Through sharing data, authors convey their openness to a different perspective of the truth. Even in replicating a study, a comparison of findings would unfold new knowledge. Sharing data is always essential to maximize ethical considerations to protect human subjects. Sharing research findings remains an ethical duty, not only to close the loop of any research work but also to disseminate advances that would improve the clinical practice.

For Dr. Saad, writing is only the tip of the iceberg in research work. The major challenges to academic writing reside in learning and applying the prerequisites. The conceptualization of a study and having accurate and aligned conceptual and operational definitions mediate clear and concise writing. Prior to writing, the methodological process of conducting research brings another layer of challenges, particularly in resource-limited settings with a lack of funding, training, and facilities. Moreover, as English is the most widely used language in research, the dissemination of articles in other languages is challenged despite the outstanding research content. When it comes to writing per se, it is often hard for authors to accept that academic writing is an iterative process requiring strenuous and perseverant efforts to precisely express the abundance of ideas and yield a meaningful product.

The most common difficulties mentioned earlier by Dr. Saad are often encountered in any academic writing under usual circumstances. However, conducting research in some regions brings a whole new package of challenges. Her manuscript “Pediatric palliative care through the eyes of healthcare professionals, parents and communities: a narrative review” was completed in Lebanon between the years 2020 and 2021. During these years and till now, the country is witnessing insecurity, sharp economic decline, and continuous political quarrels that left the country in a severe brain drain. Furthermore, on August 4, 2020, an unprecedented explosion intensely destroyed Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. For a while, it seemed insane to write and conduct research within these extraordinary circumstances where a collective shift toward survival mode surged. The only thought that got her through this endeavor was to keep moving forward no matter how little the progress is. Many other countries might be experiencing these dramatic conditions, yet their researchers still produce. For them, academic writing may be a meaningful way to cope with the sad reality by contributing to advancing science and serving humanity. For these reasons, researchers from such regions deserve special salutations and recognition.

(By Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

Heemoon Lee

Heemoon Lee, MD, PhD is the Director of Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in the Bucheon Sejong Hospital, Republic Korea and the Chief of the Mechanical Circulatory Support Service of the Bucheon Sejong Hospital. His research interests include improvements and refinement of patient outcomes after cardiac surgery and interventions. His current projects focus on minimally invasive cardiac surgery, end-stage heart failure and replacement therapy, valvular heart disease, quality of life after cardiac surgery, artificial intelligence, etc.

What role does academic writing play in science? Dr. Lee says, “Through academic writing, scientific knowledge will be able to be improved. A lot of new theories have been emerging. However, many theories cannot be supported or maintained. Academic writing is the important step for scientists to confirm their theories and broaden our perspectives in science.”

Science advances rapidly day by day. Dr. Lee states that trying to keep writing academic works is the important way to follow up-to-date knowledge. When we write academic works, we need to search for current research papers. It promotes us to acknowledge and follow up-to-date knowledge in our scientific fields.

The burden of being a scientist and doctor is heavy. Dr. Lee tries to make a certain time in a week for only focusing on research work. In addition, key ideas and main subjects are the most important for scientific research. Therefore, he tries to write down his ideas immediately whenever it comes out in his mind, even with short memo.

Speaking of disclosure of Conflicts of Interest (COI), Dr. Lee states that it is critical in scientific research. Although researchers try not to influence by funding or financial support, it is difficult to be completely free from influences of funders or financial providers. Dr. Lee thinks research conclusions can be biased if it is supported by certain companies of funders. Therefore, COI should be disclosed clearly in research works.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Jared R. Robbins

Dr. Jared Robbins is an Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Arizona, College of Medicine-Tucson and the Residency Program Director. He specializes in treating head and neck cancers, cutaneous malignancies, and palliative radiation therapy. He is interested in improving patient outcomes by using advanced radiation technology to reduce toxicity and decrease the burden of treatment through stereotactic and hypofractionated treatments. Dr. Robbins enjoys educating people about the benefits of palliative radiation therapy and helping radiation oncologists understand how their decisions regarding fractionation schema impact the patient’s experience and their burden of care.

To Dr. Robbins, a “good” academic paper is one that tells a story and helps you to re-evaluate your current paradigms and perceptions. These types of paper help Dr. Robbins to refine the way he addresses a problem, raises his awareness, and broaden his perspective, so that he can better address patient’s needs and manage their diseases more effectively. The essential elements of a good paper are a solid background/introduction, a well-thought-out hypothesis that is supported by the analysis and results, a balance and well-written discussion, and a strong take home message. A good paper challenges your assumptions, perceptions and preconceived notions, and inspires you to be better.

Furthermore, when writing, biases can be challenging to identify and correct because they can be associated with every aspect of the research process, Dr. Robbins tries to avoid bias by trying to keep his mind open and force his own notions onto the data, but rather let the analysis show the truth of the matter and not his own conscious or subconscious biases. He also tries to collaborate with colleagues with slightly different experiences and perspectives, so that they can challenge each other’s assumptions. It can also be helpful to work with a statistician who can help ensure that the data analysis stays true to form and that proper techniques are used to reduce bias as much as possible.

Academic writing demands a concerted effort and some inner drive. Dr. Robbins has found that external pressure and mandates set by others constrict his creativity and desire to work on a problem and can make the process tedious. On the contrary, when he can set his own timelines and work on projects that he is passionate about, it is easier to be engaged and productive. He is motivated by an inner desire to contribute and educate. One of his biggest motivations comes through a desire to help others, particularly if they are medical students or residents. Helping them learn how to carry out and write up a research project is a source of great joy to him. Watching them grow and start to develop their own research/writing acumen is one of the most rewarding aspects of his job. Additional motivation comes from the people who he collaborates with and the opportunity to associate and synergize with other gifted and talented physicians.

When talking about data sharing, Dr. Robbins shares, “I think data sharing can have a profound impact on improving the quality of research and help broaden the impact of any given dataset by allowing people of different perspectives and backgrounds to look at the same data with different eyes. This can help to reduce bias and improve the quality of the research. I think data sharing can also help ensure quality by giving others the opportunity to provide feedback and a means for creating a sense of checks and balances to validate research findings and data interpretation. When the data was generated using government or other public funds, data sharing helps to ensure that many groups can use the data and maximize the investment. Despite the many benefits, concerted efforts are needed to protect the data that are shared to ensure no protected health information is lost and patient privacy and security are not violated.”

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

Masahiko Sumitani

Dr. Masahiko Sumitani is the Department Director of Pain and Palliative Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital and Associate Professor of Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Japan. He started his career as a trainee anaesthetist at the Osaka University Hospital in 2000. He obtained his PhD in neurocognitive investigations on pain. He is the only one who has achieved the Young Investigator Awards and Grand Research Awards from both the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists and the Japan Society for Clinical Anesthesia. Dr. Sumitani remains active in clinical practice for cancer-related pain and non-cancer chronic pain via his involvement with interdisciplinary pain center. His current research interests include studies on mechanism of neuropathic pain and cancer-related pain in clinical settings, as well as the implementation of pain management guidelines for neuropathic pain and practical use of opioids and other analgesics. Learn more about Dr. Sumitani here.

When considering and providing evidence-based clinical practice, academic writing is the sole asset for evidence. Pain, which is Dr. Sumitani’s clinical and research interest, is rather subjective and cannot be objectively evaluated, and has still been regrettably managed based on individual physicians’ experience-based beliefs and scientific misinformation in Japan. To overcome these difficult situations, academic writing becomes one of their main duties for patients.

During preparation of a manuscript, Dr. Sumitani takes two points of views to avoid biases in his own writing. One is being fair (i.e., equally enthusiastic and critical) to novel insights from academic writings from other people. Another one is being cooled down for findings by himself with clear eyes rather than excited eyes.

Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. In Dr. Sumitani’s opinion, if accepted by the institutional ethics committee and respective participants’ agreement, data sharing should be realized for important and fundamental aspects of any scientific activities, where the findings are validated to be reliable and reproducible. Further, data sharing would be really promising for advancement into realizing evidence-based clinical practice.

“One step by achieving one academic writing might be certainly a small advancement for evidence-based clinical practice. However, a scientific journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” says Dr. Sumitani.

(By Brad Li, Teresa Lin)

Chetna Malhotra

Dr. Chetna Malhotra is an Assistant Professor and Deputy Director (Research) at Lien Centre for Palliative Care and Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore. She is a physician specializing in Public Health and Community Medicine. She has more than a decade of experience conducting health services research in the area of end-of-life care for patients with advanced serious illnesses including those with advanced cancer, heart failure and dementia, with the goal of improving delivery of palliative care services to these populations. She has received the Clinician Scientist Award from Singapore’s National Medical Council for her work related to advance care planning. Her work is published in leading clinical, palliative care and geriatric journals, and she mentors graduate and medical students in conducting palliative care research. Connect with Dr. Malhotra on LinkedIn.

Academic writing is crucial, according to Dr. Malhotra, for dissemination of new scientific insights and breakthroughs. Without academic writing, there would be no sharing of information and science will not advance.

It is important for scientists to stay up-to-date regarding new advances in their field. In Dr. Malhotra’s experience, she stays abreast of current knowledge by reviewing regular email alerts of new publications from relevant journals and from Google Scholar to be familiar with latest publications in her field. For every new research, she asks herself if this has been done before, and what else needs to be done to improve the way she delivers health care to patients.

Dr. Malhotra is fond of using reporting guidelines, such as STROBE and TREND, during preparation of manuscripts. She believes these guidelines are important as they guide the authors to report all relevant information in their manuscript, thereby increasing the transparency of research. It also helps readers understand and evaluate the findings better.

“The burden of being a scientist is heavy. It does require a lot of self-discipline – I set up deadlines for myself, and turn off all email notifications when I am working. I also write my manuscripts in parts, rather than in one sitting. For instance, I write my methods and results sections first, and then the introduction and discussion sections,” says Dr. Malhotra.

(By Brad Li, Teresa Lin)

Eva Katharina Masel

Dr. Eva Katharina Masel is the head of the Clinical Division of Palliative Medicine at the Vienna General Hospital of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, and a full professor of Palliative Medicine. She has specialized in Internal Medicine, has completed a Master’s Degree in Palliative Care and a PhD program in Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine and has qualified as a university lecturer in Palliative Medicine. Dr. Masel is the research group leader of the Research Group Palliative Care at the Medical University of Vienna. Her research focuses on symptom management, treatment of psychiatric comorbidities and psychosocial aspects, and medical humanities. She is a board member of the Austrian Association of Palliative Care and a member of national and international specialist societies. Learn more about Dr. Masel through her homepage, LinkedIn and ResearchGate.

APM: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Masel: Academic writing is neither poetic nor prosaic, but clear and structured. Characteristics of academic writing are that the writing style should be straightforward and easy to follow, have a logical flow and contain evidence-based reasoning. Scientific research should be conducted with proper methodology that has to be described clearly. Conclusions should be supported by the results. Academic writing aims to investigate relevant research questions, prove, or disprove them and discuss the results found in an appropriate way. Writing has to be formal and sound and should rationally explore facts and evidence while previous research has to be properly cited and references should focus on the available knowledge in the research field. Good scientific work leads to a gain in knowledge and can contribute to progress in daily practice. A lot of work goes into every good-quality paper. It is a great advantage if you are really interested in the subject you are studying. It can also be helpful to refer to well-written papers from recognized journals. Each paper should start with a literature review, which provides an overview of existing knowledge related to the research question.

APM: How to avoid biases in one’s writing?

Dr. Masel: In my opinion, it makes sense to orientate oneself according to the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely), CONSORT, STROBE or PRISMA criteria depending on the type of the study and to be aware of the possible biases already at the beginning of a research project. Bias exists and is difficult to eliminate completely. There is attrition bias, non-response bias, reporting bias, selection bias, survivorship bias, or undercoverage bias, to name a few. According to the motto "garbage in, garbage out", a clear research question, a good research design and an adequate research protocol are of utmost importance with regard to any scientific study. Furthermore, a potential bias should be declared in the limitations section.

APM: Is there any interesting story during academic writing that you would like to share with us?

Dr. Masel: Within the framework of a publication, five revisions were necessary and I literally wanted to "get rid of" the paper. Nevertheless, the manuscript got better and better through these frequent revisions and I had to acknowledge the reviewer's experience and diligence. You always have to see things from both sides. Critically reviewing a paper and writing a paper are two different things. Sometimes a change of perspective helps and you can try to read your own manuscripts through the eyes of a reviewer.

APM: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?

Dr. Masel: Essential tasks of an IRB are the evaluation of a medically justifiable risk-benefit ratio of a study, the appropriateness of the research methods used, the requirements for the study participants, such as the ability to give consent, the suitability of the investigators and facilities, and the appropriateness of the written informed consent in which patients are given important information, including possible risks and benefits. On the one hand, this is a great service and, on the other hand, a sensible hurdle to avoid unethical questions, unsuitable research designs and inappropriate methods. If this control authority were missing, any person could simply start researching without having the necessary background and knowledge.

(By Brad Li, Teresa Lin)