In 2026, many authors bring new findings, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to thoracic disease 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 perspectives and insightful views as authors.
Outstanding Authors (2026)
Anaëlle Chermat, University Hospital of Limoges, France
Adel D. Almaymuni, King Khalid University Hospital, Saudi Arabia
Geneviève C. Digby, Queen’s University, Canada
Rogerio da Hora Passos, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Brazil
Raffaele Rocco, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, USA
Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Glenn Khai Wern Yong, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
Hee-Young Yoon, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Korea
Jonathan G. Bailey, Dalhousie University, Canada
Susumu Fukahori, Nagasaki University Hospital, Japan
Victor A. Shahen, St Vincent’s Hospital, Australia
Ulrike Ritz, The University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Germany
Chong G. Chew, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Australia
Daichi Ishii, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine and Sapporo City General Hospital, Japan
Edvardas Danila, Vilnius University Faculty of Medicine, Lithuania
Robert A. Pol, The University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, The Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Wiriya Maisat, Mahidol University, Thailand
Felix Hers, Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Lam Thao Cuong, University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Yasuhiro Norisue, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Japan
Yasushi Obase, Sasebo City General Hospital, Japan
Terunaga Inage, Toronto General Hospital, Canada
Anam Umar, UAB St. Vincent’s East, USA
Albert Teng, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
Daniel Carrera, George Washington University, USA
Dominik Lobinger, München Klinik Bogenhausen, Germany
Kazuhisa Tanaka, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Lamia Aljundi, Loma Linda University, USA
Barbara Wilkey, The University of Colorado, USA
Masatoshi Kurihara, Nissan Tamagawa Hospital, Japan
Yuichiro Machida, Nippon Medical School, Japan
Takumi Kawase, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan
Gabriella R. Rasmussen, The Medical University of South Carolin, USA
Federico Monaca, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, UK
Tomonori Nakanoko, Kyushu University, Japan
Outstanding Author
Anaëlle Chermat
Dr. Anaëlle Chermat is a thoracic surgeon, certified since November 2024. She began her medical career at the Faculty of Medicine in Brest, France, and started her residency at the University Hospital of Limoges in 2017. From the start of her training, she focused on thoracic and thyroid surgery, developing both my clinical expertise and technical skills. During her residency, she gained extensive experience in robotic surgery and advanced her understanding of thyroid pathology management. Her thesis work centered on sternal replacement for oncological conditions, including sarcomas and metastases, using CERAMIL sternal prostheses. In parallel, during her Master’s degree (M2), she researched extracellular vesicles to explore innovative approaches for improving patient care in lung cancer. This journey has enabled her to combine surgical practice with research, equipping her to make significant contributions both clinically and academically to the field of thoracic surgery.
Dr. Chermat thinks the main challenges in writing include strict adherence to ethical and methodological standards, which are essential for the credibility of the study. It is often difficult to structure and present complex data clearly while meeting the requirements of scientific journals. Furthermore, retrospective or descriptive studies are increasingly less accepted, with journals favoring prospective or randomized studies.
According to Dr. Chermat, writing a scientific paper requires a significant investment of time and effort. Collecting patient data, conducting literature reviews, preparing ethics committee submissions, and finally drafting the manuscript in a clear and concise way are all time-consuming steps. She works on her papers whenever possible during her hospital hours, but she also sometimes needs to dedicate time on weekends to ensure progress.
Speaking of the use of reporting guidelines, Dr. Chermat admits that she does not always adhere to them strictly. While she recognizes their value in ensuring methodological rigor and transparency, she prefers to focus on presenting the study in a clear, logical, and readable way, highlighting the most relevant findings. She believes that flexibility allows for better storytelling of the research while still maintaining scientific accuracy.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Adel D. Almaymuni
Dr. Adel D. Almaymuni is a Thoracic Surgery Fellow at King Khalid University Hospital, Saudi Arabia, where he is actively engaged in both clinical practice and academic research. He obtained his medical degree from King Abdulaziz University in 2018. His clinical and research interests focus on minimally invasive thoracic and upper GI surgery and thoracic oncology. His recent work includes published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating robotic-assisted thoracic approaches, including thymectomy and uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS) for anatomic lung resection, with a focus on perioperative safety, clinical outcomes, and oncological efficacy. His future research will focus on lung cancer and the surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease, with particular emphasis on optimizing patient outcomes and advancing minimally invasive techniques.
According to Dr. Almaymuni, a good academic paper begins with a meaningful question, often one that arises directly from clinical practice, when scientists encounter situations that the existing literature does not fully answer. From there, the study must be built on a solid methodological foundation, with careful data analysis and a clear structure that guides the reader logically from the background of the problem to the interpretation of the findings. Clarity is essential. Even when the topic is complex, the message should remain concise and accessible, supported by well-designed figures or tables when appropriate. At the same time, intellectual honesty cannot be overlooked. A strong paper not only presents its results but also openly acknowledges its limitations and places the findings within the broader scientific context. Ultimately, what makes an academic paper truly valuable is its ability to add meaningful knowledge to the field and, ideally, to help improve patient care.
Dr. Almaymuni reckons that bias rarely announces itself; it often enters quietly through assumptions or expected outcomes. Avoiding it requires a conscious effort to question one’s own interpretations at every stage of the research process. Wherever possible, analyses should be predefined, and methodology must be reported transparently. Equally important is the willingness to treat limitations as an integral part of the scientific discussion rather than an afterthought. Acknowledging uncertainty strengthens, rather than weakens, the credibility of the work. Data sharing and reproducibility are crucial, enabling independent researchers to analyze findings from various perspectives. Ultimately, peer review, collaboration, and openness are our strongest safeguards. By inviting scrutiny and remaining intellectually honest, we can minimize bias and ensure that our conclusions are guided by evidence rather than expectation.
“To anyone revising manuscripts after long operating days or facing rejection letters, I would say that your work matters more than it sometimes feels. Every paper becomes a lasting contribution to colleagues you may never meet, and to patients you may never directly treat. Stay close to your clinical curiosity, embrace revision as part of the process, and support those around you along the way. Science grows through shared effort and generosity. Keep going, and the work is truly worth it,” says Dr. Almaymuni.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Geneviève C. Digby
Dr. Geneviève C. Digby is an Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine and Interim Co-Chair of the Division of Respirology and Sleep Medicine at Queen’s University. She holds a Master of Science in Healthcare Quality and is the Medical Director of Patient Safety, Quality, and Clinical Risk at Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC). She is a clinician scholar with a passion for Quality Improvement in healthcare, particularly in terms of efficient resource utilization, timely access to care, and streamlining healthcare processes. Her clinical practice includes leading the Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP), a rapid assessment clinic that coordinates the care of patients with suspected lung cancer, and she leads the EBUS-TBNA program at KHSC.
According to Dr. Digby, academic writing is the way the scientific community disseminates information and advances collective knowledge. More importantly, it facilitates the sharing of learnings, stimulates knowledge translation, and inspires further curiosity and inquisitiveness. The peer-review process ensures rigor and representation of diverse perspectives. In her team’s case, they wanted to share their learnings from launching an EBUS-TBNA program at a center without interventional pulmonology with the hope that by sharing this knowledge, it could help make EBUS-TBNA more accessible to general pulmonologists and potentially improve access outside centers with dedicated IP programs.
Dr. Digby highlights that authors should clearly articulate the purpose of their work and express their main message plainly. They should be reflective and contemplative, considering the broader implications of their findings and the optimal target audience for maximal impact, in addition to being confident and persistent in the pursuit of disseminating their work. Finally, they need to be open to feedback, welcome various perspectives, and have realistic expectations.
“I have personally always enjoyed the art of writing, and so I create the opportunity to engage in academic writing whenever possible. To ensure time to advance my scientific writing, I schedule uninterruptable time to allow sufficient space for creativity and depth. I have also learned to harness the enthusiasm of trainees in helping with the writing process, and I recognize the efficiency that comes from taking a mentoring or editorial role for some papers,” says Dr. Digby.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Rogerio da Hora Passos
Dr. Rogerio da Hora Passos is a nephrologist and intensivist working at the Department of Critical Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, and at DaVita Renal Care. His clinical practice sits at the intersection of nephrology and intensive care, with a particular focus on sepsis, acute kidney injury, and extracorporeal therapies. He has a strong interest in acid–base physiology and in the practical aspects of dialysis in critically ill patients, especially the use of regional citrate anticoagulation. He is also involved in neurocritical care and in the use of bedside imaging—such as echocardiography, ultrasound, and transcranial Doppler—to better understand physiology in real time. His work extends to ARDS management, including ECMO, as well as kidney and liver transplantation. He is currently focused on placing physiology at the core of clinical decision-making for critically ill patients.
Dr. Passos thinks that a good paper should clarify something that was previously uncertain. It does not have to be complicated; it just needs to be honest and useful. The best papers often avoid trying to do too much. They focus on asking a meaningful question and providing a clinically sensible answer. Sometimes they do not change practice immediately, but they change how researchers think. And that tends to last longer. He thinks that clarity is more important than novelty. If a paper is well written, grounded in physiology, and careful with its conclusions, it usually remains relevant over time.
In Dr. Passos’ opinion, authors cannot completely avoid bias—they learn to recognize it. Most of them start with an idea they believe in. The problem is when they only look for evidence that supports it. He tries to ask himself about what he would conclude if the results were different. That helps keep things balanced. Talking to colleagues who disagree is also important. And being explicit about limitations is essential. Most bias does not come from bad intentions—it comes from being too certain too early.
“Most meaningful work takes time, and it often feels uncertain. That is part of the process. What matters is staying curious. If you keep asking good questions, writing becomes a way of thinking, not just a task. Not every paper needs to be definitive. Sometimes the goal is simply to understand something a little better and share that with others. Over time, those small steps are what move the field forward,” says Dr. Passos.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Raffaele Rocco
Raffaele Rocco, MD, is a thoracic surgeon and Assistant Professor of Surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. His clinical practice focuses on thoracic oncology, including lung cancer, esophageal disease, and complex minimally invasive thoracic surgery. His research centers on improving early detection and treatment of lung cancer through multidisciplinary approaches that integrate imaging, advanced bronchoscopic technologies, and blood-based biomarkers. His recent work has explored circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for minimal residual disease detection, AI-assisted risk stratification of pulmonary nodules, and outcomes research using large national oncology databases. He is also involved in initiatives aimed at improving lung cancer screening referral pathways and optimizing perioperative outcomes after thoracic surgery. His broader goal is to advance precision approaches to thoracic cancer care while expanding access to early diagnosis and curative treatment.
Dr. Rocco considers academic writing to be the main method through which scientific knowledge is communicated, assessed, and expanded upon. It allows clinicians and researchers to share observations and outcomes in a way that others can validate, challenge, or expand upon the work. In medicine, this is particularly important because this written record ultimately guides guidelines and patient care. Ultimately, academic writing transforms individual discoveries into shared knowledge.
In Dr. Rocco’s view, data sharing has become increasingly important in modern research. Open access to data enhances reproducibility, facilitates independent validation of results, and often leads to new insights.
“Scientific writing can be demanding and sometimes slow, but it remains one of the most meaningful ways to contribute to the advancement of our practice! Every manuscript adds another piece to the larger puzzle,” says Dr. Rocco.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Tanyong Pipanmekaporn
Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, MD, PhD, is a Consultant Anesthesiologist in the Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine at Chiang Mai University, Thailand. After earning a PhD in Clinical Epidemiology in 2014, she has dedicated her career to bridging the gap between clinical practice and robust data-driven research. Specializing in cardiovascular and thoracic anesthesia, her primary research focuses on identifying risk factors and developing clinical predictive models for postoperative outcomes and complications. Beyond the cardiothoracic suite, she possesses a strong interest in the management of postoperative delirium within non-cardiac surgery and intensive care settings. As a dedicated educator and mentor, she plays a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of specialists, overseeing research education for anesthesia residents and clinical fellowships. Furthermore, she serves as a mentor for PhD students in Clinical Epidemiology, fostering advanced methodology in medical research.
JTD: What role does academic writing play in science?
Dr. Pipanmekaporn: Academic writing is the cornerstone of scientific rigor and longevity. It is not merely a method of reporting data, but a critical thinking process that demands clarity and precision. In my work with residents and PhD students, I view writing as a vital educational tool. It teaches the next generation how to translate complex epidemiological findings into actionable clinical insights, ensuring that scientific discovery continues to evolve through structured, transparent dialogue.
JTD: How do you ensure your writing is up-to-date and can give new insights to the field of research?
Dr. Pipanmekaporn: In a rapidly evolving landscape, I ensure my work remains relevant by maintaining a continuous cycle of literature surveillance and leveraging my background in clinical epidemiology. I focus on identifying 'knowledge gaps' rather than just repeating established trends. By applying advanced predictive modeling and robust statistical methodologies to our local clinical data, I aim to provide insights that are not only current but also offer a unique regional perspective on global challenges like postoperative complications and delirium.
JTD: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Pipanmekaporn: The dual responsibility of a clinician and a scientist is indeed a heavy burden. To manage this, I dedicate my long holidays to academic writing, as these periods allow me the deep concentration required to focus on the intricate details of a manuscript. In recent years, the evolution of generative AI has become an invaluable asset in my workflow. By utilizing AI tools for English language editing, I have significantly improved the quality of my manuscripts while saving both time and resources. This integration of technology allows me to bridge the gap between clinical duties and scientific contributions more efficiently.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Glenn Khai Wern Yong
Dr. Glenn Yong is a dual-accredited specialist in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. He obtained his medical degree from Monash University, Australia, in 2014. After completing his specialist training, he developed a strong clinical and research interest in pleural diseases, with a particular focus on advancing his procedural expertise in medical thoracoscopy. His recent research includes publications on intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy for pleural infections and studies characterising the microbiology of pleural infections. He is also actively involved in ongoing work on malignant pleural effusions, aiming to improve diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in this field.
According to Dr. Yong, a good academic paper addresses a clinically relevant question using robust methodology and rigorous data analysis. The results should be presented in a clear, logical structure that is easy for readers to follow, and written in a manner that remains accessible even when addressing complex topics. From a clinician’s perspective, a strong paper provides meaningful insights into areas of uncertainty in clinical practice, particularly where existing guidelines may be limited, thereby contributing to improved patient care.
Dr. Yong thinks that writing a scientific paper is a demanding and multifaceted process, encompassing study conceptualisation, literature review, ethics approval, data collection and analysis, and manuscript development. Motivation and discipline are essential qualities for any author. In addition, effective leadership and the ability to foster productive collaboration among co-authors are key to producing high-quality work. Finally, perseverance is crucial, as challenges and setbacks are an inherent part of the research journey.
“I chose to publish in JTD because it has a strong international readership and a clear focus on thoracic medicine, making it an ideal platform for disseminating my research. The journal’s rigorous peer-review process ensures high standards of scientific quality, while its open-access model enhances the visibility and accessibility of published work, thereby increasing its potential impact,” says Dr. Yong.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Hee-Young Yoon
Hee-Young Yoon, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, South Korea. Her research focuses on environmental and epidemiologic determinants of respiratory diseases, with particular emphasis on interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). She has conducted large-scale population-based and nationwide cohort studies investigating the impact of environmental exposures, such as air pollution and climate factors, on disease progression and clinical outcomes. Her recent work integrates epidemiologic approaches with advanced statistical methods to better understand prognosis and risk stratification in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). She is actively engaged in multidisciplinary collaborations aimed at translating epidemiologic findings into clinically meaningful insights.
From Dr. Yoon’s perspective, academic writing is fundamental to the advancement of science because it provides a structured and transparent way to communicate research findings. It allows others to critically evaluate, reproduce, and build upon existing work, which is essential for cumulative knowledge development. In clinical and epidemiologic research, academic writing also serves as a bridge between data and real-world impact, informing clinical practice and health policy. Importantly, the process of writing itself enforces clarity of thinking—requiring researchers to define their hypotheses, justify their methods, and carefully interpret their results. In this sense, academic writing is not merely a form of communication but a core component of rigorous scientific inquiry.
Ensuring critical writing, according to Dr. Yoon, begins with maintaining a clear distinction between findings and interpretation. Researchers should avoid overstating results and instead present conclusions that are directly supported by the data. It is also essential to systematically consider potential biases, including confounding, selection bias, and measurement error, and to address these through appropriate study design and analytical strategies. Comparing results with existing literature helps contextualize findings and identify inconsistencies. Additionally, conducting sensitivity analyses and transparently reporting limitations strengthens the credibility of the work. Ultimately, critical writing reflects a disciplined approach to both analysis and interpretation, prioritizing validity over narrative appeal.
“One memorable experience during academic writing involved analyzing a large nationwide dataset where the initial results suggested a strong protective effect of a clinical practice. Initially, the findings were exciting and appeared clinically meaningful. However, upon closer examination of the analysis, I realized that the result was driven by a methodological issue—immortal time bias. After redefining the exposure and revising the study design, the apparent benefit largely disappeared. Although this was initially disappointing, it became a valuable lesson. It reminded me that results that appear ‘too good to be true’ often require deeper scrutiny, and that the strength of research lies in its validity rather than its novelty. Since then, I have placed greater emphasis on study design and critical evaluation throughout the writing process,” says Dr. Yoon.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Jonathan G. Bailey
Jonathan Bailey, MD, MSc CIP FRCPC EDRA, is an anesthesiologist and associate professor at Dalhousie University. He holds a master’s degree in epidemiology and has completed a fellowship in Regional Anesthesia. His clinical and research interests include acute pain, regional anesthesia, and healthcare in austere settings. He is the Medical Director for Global Health and Community Engagement in the Department of Anesthesia and the Rwanda Lead for the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society International Education Foundation (CASIEF). He is a Vital Anaesthesia Simulation Training (VAST) instructor and co-author of VAST Wellbeing. His microgravity research has been featured on CBC News, CBC Information Morning, and the Block it like it is hot podcast. He was the recipient of the Su Ganapathy Regional Anesthesia Research Award in 2025. He has received the Resident Advocate of the Year Award in 2020, the Clinical Teacher of the Year Award in 2021, and the Daily Evaluation Certificate of Appreciation in 2022.
According to Dr. Bailey, academic writing, especially when clear and logical, is essential to the scientific process. Empirical, repeatable data obtained ethically and transparently is clearly the center of the scientific method. However, being able to outline the theoretical framework, background, need, and interpretation in an easy-to-follow manner sets excellent researchers apart. Moving past competence toward being ‘outstanding’ necessitates clear thinking, introspection, and humility when considering the limitations of any work. He would recommend both formal methodological and literary training to any aspiring researcher.
Dr. Bailey appreciates his department and family for providing him with protected time for research activities. Without adequate time to formulate questions, develop methods, and write clearly, this work would be impossible. While there is a massive benefit in maintaining a busy clinical practice in order to ask relevant questions, protected time allows for success in research in a way that the after-hours grid never can. There is a temptation to allow clinical work and meetings to take over “protected” time, but to complete meaningful work in a timely fashion, researchers need to be able to focus for several consecutive hours on a regular basis.
Speaking of the importance of the institutional review board (IRB), Dr. Bailey says, “Aside from this being a legal requirement and mandatory for publication, the IRB process is beneficial for improving the quality of research. We are continuing to learn that research needs to be for the patient, not just about the patient. The now commonly used phrase when talking about Indigenous research is to avoid research that is ‘about us, not without us’. This has broader implications when considering the role of ethics boards and patients in clinical research. Our ethics board commonly finds ways to improve the acceptability of participation in clinical research and improve methods. Further to this, our department has a standing group of patient partners to review studies for relevance, acceptance, and readability – among numerous other questions to ensure that research is usable for patients. Medicine is facing a crisis in trust in the post-pandemic period. Any research that avoids the IRB process or patient involvement in planning risks deepening the crisis.”
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Susumu Fukahori
Susumu Fukahori, MD, PhD, is affiliated with the Department of Respiratory Medicine at Nagasaki University Hospital, Japan. His research focuses on respiratory medicine, particularly bronchial asthma, COPD, allergy, immunology, and airway inflammation. His recent work has focused on the clinical and translational aspects of chronic airway diseases, including biomarker-based approaches and the evaluation of novel therapeutic strategies in severe asthma. He has also been involved in research on airway epithelial biology and inflammatory mechanisms relevant to respiratory disease. Through his clinical practice and academic work, he aims to contribute to a better understanding of chronic respiratory disorders and to the improvement of patient care through careful clinical investigation and evidence-based medicine.
In Dr. Fukahori’s view, one of the most common difficulties in academic writing is translating complex clinical or experimental findings into a clear and concise message. Researchers are often very close to their own data, which can make it difficult to identify the single most important takeaway for readers. Another challenge is balancing completeness with readability: authors want to present enough methodological and contextual detail, but too much detail can obscure the central message. In addition, maintaining logical flow from the research question to the conclusion is not always easy. For many authors, especially non-native English speakers, expressing nuance accurately in English is also a challenge. Finally, responding constructively to peer review requires patience, objectivity, and a willingness to revise one’s interpretation when necessary.
Dr. Fukahori thinks that effective evidence synthesis starts with a clearly defined clinical or scientific question. Authors should decide in advance what type of evidence is most relevant to that question and establish explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria before reviewing the literature. It is important to prioritize methodological quality, direct relevance, and consistency of findings rather than simply the number of available studies. When analyzing the evidence, authors should pay close attention to study design, sample size, risk of bias, heterogeneity, and whether outcomes are clinically meaningful. They should also distinguish between strong evidence and exploratory findings. During the process, transparency is essential: the search strategy, selection process, and reasons for emphasizing certain studies should be clear and reproducible. Authors must also avoid selecting only evidence that supports their expectations, and they should acknowledge uncertainty, limitations, and gaps in the literature. This kind of balanced approach makes the final analysis more reliable and useful for readers.
“I chose to publish in JTD because it is an international, peer-reviewed journal that covers a broad range of respiratory and thoracic diseases while maintaining a strong clinical perspective. I appreciate that the journal publishes work that is not only scientifically meaningful but also practical for clinicians and researchers involved in patient care. Its broad readership makes it an excellent platform for sharing findings that may contribute to a better understanding and management of respiratory disease. I also value the journal’s multidisciplinary scope, which helps connect clinical medicine, translational research, and emerging therapeutic strategies. For authors working in respiratory medicine, I believe JTD provides an important venue where research can reach an international audience and stimulate constructive academic discussion,” says Dr. Fukahori.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Victor A. Shahen
Dr. Victor Shahen is a cardiothoracic resident at St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, and a visiting researcher with the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Barwon Health. His research focuses on cardiothoracic surgery, with a particular interest in pulmonary resection and the application of advanced imaging and 3D reconstruction to improve anatomical understanding and operative planning in thoracic surgery. His work has centered on developing patient-specific 3D models to characterize bronchovascular anatomy and tumour relationships, with emphasis on segmentectomy and subsegmentectomy planning. His research aims to address anatomical variability and improve the assessment of segmental configuration, operative strategy, and risk in sublobar resection. He has contributed to establishing practical and reproducible 3D reconstruction workflows with applications in both clinical planning and surgical education.
According to Dr. Shahen, as a relatively new clinical researcher, one of the main challenges in academic writing is translating complex clinical and technical concepts into clear, concise language without losing accuracy. It can be difficult to balance sufficient detail with readability, particularly when writing for a broader audience. Structuring a paper in a logical and coherent way is another common issue, especially in multifaceted projects. Time constraints alongside clinical responsibilities also limit opportunities for refinement. In addition, it can be challenging early on to maintain a clear focus and ensure the work addresses a specific, clinically meaningful question.
Balancing clinical work and research is always a challenge, so Dr. Shahen tries to be deliberate with how he uses smaller blocks of time rather than waiting for long, uninterrupted periods. He tends to break writing into manageable tasks – outlining, drafting, and editing – and works on them incrementally. Having clear deadlines, whether self-imposed or collaborative, also helps maintain momentum. Finally, working within a supportive team and sharing drafts early allows for steady progress despite a busy clinical schedule.
Dr. Shahen thinks it is important to follow reporting guidelines when preparing manuscripts. Frameworks, such as STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA, provide a structured approach to ensure that studies are reported transparently and comprehensively. They help capture key methodological details, particularly in complex clinical research. They also improve the clarity and reproducibility of the work, making it easier for readers and reviewers to critically appraise the study. In addition, adhering to these guidelines often streamlines the submission and review process. Overall, they improve the quality, consistency, and credibility of published research.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Ulrike Ritz
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Ritz is affiliated with the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany. Her team’s research focuses on two main areas: One is Biomaterial-Driven Bone Regeneration, where their work demonstrates that bioactive hydrogels and porous polylactide scaffolds modulate bone regeneration and enhance vascular network formation, laying the groundwork for implants that actively orchestrate the regenerative microenvironment. The second is Functionalization of Composite Scaffolds for Bone Repair. In collaboration with materials scientists, they engineer hybrid scaffolds consisting of various materials and/or 3D-printed polylactide frameworks. These composites are functionalized with growth factors and/or antimicrobial agents to promote site-specific regeneration while preventing infection. They characterize degradation kinetics, mechanical resilience, and cell adhesion properties.
For Dr. Ritz, a good academic paper is more than just a collection of data or arguments. It must present a clear and well-defined contribution to its field, offering new insights that inspire her to cite it and engage with its ideas. To achieve this, the paper requires a sharp and focused question that can be summarized in one or, at most, two sentences. The introduction should center on the topic and clearly present the main question without delving into excessive detail. The methods must be described thoroughly so they can be easily replicated by others. The results must be organized in a straightforward and clear manner, accompanied by figures that effectively convey the findings without requiring extensive explanation. Finally, the results should be discussed in relation to existing literature, and any limitations should be critically acknowledged.
Dr. Ritz is committed to staying current in her field as science evolves rapidly. She regularly monitors the relevant literature by searching major databases using keywords and authors pertinent to her research area. Additionally, she attends conferences to network and maintain connections with other researchers. Before starting a project, she conducts a systematic gap analysis to define the project's objectives. This approach continues throughout her research and the writing process of a manuscript, helping ensure that her work remains up-to-date and provides new insights into her field.
“One of the most interesting moments of academic writing, in my opinion, is the moment when you receive the answer from a journal you submitted your manuscript to and the comments of the reviewers. These reviewer comments range from positive to negative – including all variations. Although there are always some points of criticism that are already addressed in the manuscript — or cases where the reviewer appears to have read it too quickly (or provides nonsensical comments) — and you try to formulate a polite response. Yet, there are always – at least after some time of thinking – many points of criticism that are relevant, and by addressing and responding to them, the manuscript truly becomes better,” says Dr. Ritz.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Chong G. Chew
Dr. Chong Ghee Chew is a nuclear physician at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. He is also a PhD candidate in the School of Medicine, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. His research interests focus on VQ SPECT CT quantification for assessing bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves in emphysema, as well as surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancer.
JTD: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Dr. Chew: Putting together a narrative that encompasses all of the concepts that are being supported by the data collected to validate the aim of the study, in a manner that will be comprehensible even to a reader who has limited familiarity with the research topic. For our study, we had to explain a number of quantitative indices that we had devised for lobar functional evaluation. The explanations had to be comprehensible to a non-nuclear medicine practitioner.
JTD: Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis? What do authors have to bear in mind during the process?
Dr. Chew: One tip is to try to pick the simplest method to address a research question. The simplest method for analysis, in my experience, is one in which the data consists of paired comparisons or the endpoints are dichotomous. The final synthesis can consist of a series of analyses of paired comparisons or dichotomous endpoints for statistical significance. In the process, an important factor is the consistency of the data collection process. For our study, we evaluated the lobar functional changes by doing pre versus post valve treatment paired comparisons using each of the indices that we had devised. We evaluated the treated lobe and all of the other untreated lobes. The paired comparison provided insights into lobar changes in the redistribution of ventilation, perfusion and volume; changes in lobar contribution to lung function; changes in lobar functional performance; and changes in the amount of gas trapping.
JTD: Why did you choose to publish in JTD?
Dr. Chew: I am a nuclear physician with a study on quantitative VQ assessment for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves. Rather than publishing in an imaging journal, I chose JTD because I wish to disseminate my work to an international readership of thoracic medicine practitioners who could potentially apply my methodology in their own practice, and I am open to collaboration.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Daichi Ishii
Daichi Ishii, MD, PhD, is a thoracic surgeon affiliated with the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine and Sapporo City General Hospital, Japan. His clinical and research interests include primary spontaneous pneumothorax, lung cancer, mediastinal tumors, and minimally invasive thoracic surgery, particularly robotic-assisted thoracic surgery. His recent work has focused on long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns in young patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax, aiming to establish age-specific follow-up strategies and improve surgical outcomes. He is also actively involved in clinical research on robotic thoracic surgery and surgical innovation. His goal is to bridge clinical practice and academic research to improve patient care and contribute to the advancement of thoracic surgery.
Dr. Ishii emphasizes that academic writing is crucial because it enables researchers to share clinical experiences, scientific findings, and new ideas in a structured and reliable manner. In medicine, academic writing helps transform individual clinical observations into collective knowledge that can improve patient care. It also promotes critical thinking, scientific discussion, and continuous improvement in medical practice. Through academic writing, researchers can contribute to evidence-based medicine and support future studies that build upon previous findings.
According to Dr. Ishii, scientific writing can be challenging and time-consuming, but it is one of the most meaningful ways to contribute to medicine and science. All studies, despite their limitations, can provide valuable insights and improve patient outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to remain curious, persistent, and to keep asking important clinical questions. Academic progress is built step by step, and every contribution has the potential to advance science and improve patient care.
In addition, Dr. Ishii points out that data sharing is becoming increasingly important in scientific research. Sharing data enhances transparency, reproducibility, and trust in published findings. It enables other researchers to validate results, conduct further analyses, and formulate new hypotheses. Especially in clinical research, data sharing can accelerate scientific progress and improve the quality of evidence. However, it is equally important to protect patient privacy and follow ethical guidelines when sharing clinical data.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Edvardas Danila
In 1992, Dr. Edvardas Danila graduated from Vilnius University with a medical degree, and in 1996, he completed his pulmonology fellowship. He defended his doctoral dissertation in medical sciences on chronic bronchitis/COPD in 1999 and completed the habilitation process on interstitial lung diseases in 2009. Since 2010, he has been a professor of pulmonology. His research interests include interstitial lung diseases, COPD, lung cancer, and tuberculosis. He has published over 50 articles in ISI WoS-indexed journals, authored 45 national textbooks and guidelines. He has presented more than 80 papers at international conferences and supervised seven doctoral dissertations.
JTD: What role does academic writing play in science?
Dr. Danila: The significance of academic writing cannot be overstated. It is important for several reasons. Firstly, for the author—typically a researcher—it allows them to present their ideas, share the results of their scientific research, and offer their perspective on other authors' work. For other researchers, academic colleagues’ writing serves as a means to evaluate different viewpoints on various issues, compare research outcomes, expand their knowledge, and generate new ideas. Additionally, it is valuable for the general reader, such as a practicing physician. The more information a reader has access to, especially from authors in different countries, the more accurate and comprehensive their understanding of a particular topic will be. A critical, unconventional, and independent perspective is essential in academic writing. I have noticed that publications from authors in certain “authoritative” countries are often treated as unquestionable truth. As a result, their ideas—regardless of their accuracy—tend to be blindly repeated by other authors for many years. This issue is similarly observed in treatment recommendations for specific diseases, where pharmaceutical companies can manipulate facts and ideas. Independent academic writing and the diligent work of editors are crucial for ensuring accuracy. This reliability ultimately translates into the best possible support for patients.
JTD: How do you ensure your writing is up-to-date and can give new insights to the field of research?
Dr. Danila: Science is advancing rapidly, especially in the fields of molecular biology and genetics. However, many recent developments in these areas are often just pieces of a larger puzzle. There is a significant gap between major innovations in basic science and their application in clinical practice. Many questions remain unanswered, particularly regarding the connections between basic science and translational science. As a clinical scientist, I focus on the questions that arise from daily clinical practice. I strive to find answers by considering the overall progress in my field.
JTD: Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Danila: Absolutely. Academic writing requires a significant amount of time and effort. Several factors motivate me to engage in this activity. First, I am inspired by the challenging questions and ideas that emerge from clinical practice. Second, working at the University and the University Hospital means that academic writing, particularly scientific publications, is a mandatory aspect of my job. Third, I have a strong desire to test my own scientific ideas, which sometimes diverge from widely accepted theories. Fourth, I aim to involve young colleagues in scientific endeavors, often serving as their assistant or co-author. Lastly, I firmly believe that science is the key to progress.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Robert A. Pol
Robert A. Pol is an associate professor and transplant surgeon at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). He is known for his roles as founder and chair of the European Pancreas Transplant Research Consortium (EPTRC) and founder of the Dutch Kidney Transplant Study Group (DKTSG). His research focuses on improving outcomes in kidney and pancreas transplantation, with a specific interest in risk factors and vulnerability (such as frailty and sarcopenia), organ preservation techniques like machine perfusion, and innovative imaging. Recent projects include the award-winning use of artificial intelligence and MRI to establish a "baseline" for healthy kidneys to better evaluate donor organ quality. In addition, he has contributed to multiple experimental surgical models and biobank initiatives, supporting translational research aimed at optimizing patient outcomes in solid organ transplantation.
In Dr. Pol’s view, a good academic paper starts with a research question that is firmly grounded in clinical practice. Scientific curiosity should not be abstract but should arise from real problems encountered in patient care. This ensures that the work remains relevant and has clear potential for clinical applicability. A strong paper, therefore, addresses a meaningful gap, uses robust and transparent methodology, and presents results that can inform decision-making or improve outcomes. Clarity in writing, appropriate interpretation of findings, and an honest discussion of limitations are essential. Ultimately, a good academic paper should not only advance scientific understanding but also contribute directly or indirectly to better care for patients.
Dr. Pol thinks that an author should possess a strong sense of curiosity, ideally driven by questions that emerge from clinical practice, and an intrinsic motivation to advance the field in a meaningful way. Beyond intellectual drive, the ability to collaborate effectively is essential, as modern research is inherently multidisciplinary and relies on close cooperation within teams of experts as well as with junior researchers and PhD students. Good authors are not only contributors but also facilitators of a productive research environment. As one progresses to a more senior position, this responsibility grows: the focus should increasingly shift toward mentoring and creating opportunities for younger colleagues. Ultimately, the impact of an author is reflected not only in their own work but in how their efforts help develop and support the next generation of researchers.
“Our contribution to JTD was by invitation. We chose to accept this invitation not only because of the journal’s strong reputation and the high scientific quality of its publications, but also because it provided an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of prehabilitation and patient optimization. Given the relevance of these topics to improving surgical and transplant outcomes, we considered this a valuable platform to bring these concepts to the attention of the journal’s broad readership,” says Dr. Pol.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Ulrich Ronellenfitsch
Ulrich Ronellenfitsch is Professor of Evidence-based Abdominal Surgical Oncology at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and consultant surgeon at the University Hospitals Halle (Saale), Germany, and Heidelberg, Germany. He holds board certifications in general, vascular, and abdominal surgery, and became a Fellow of the European Board of Surgery in Surgical Oncology in 2024. His academic career has included appointments in Mannheim, Heidelberg, and Halle. His research focuses on multimodal treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, soft-tissue sarcoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, perioperative care, and health services research, with particular expertise in systematic reviews with individual patient data meta-analyses and clinical trial design. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Ronellenfitsch, academic writing is vital as it converts observations, ideas, and data into collective knowledge. Academic writing allows researchers to communicate evidence, explain methods, report results, and place findings into the context of existing knowledge. It is also important because science depends on transparency and critique. A well-written paper allows others to understand what was done, judge whether the conclusions are justified, reproduce or challenge the findings, and build upon them. Without academic writing, research remains isolated; with it, research becomes part of a collective and cumulative process. He believes that academic writing is particularly important because it connects patient care with evidence generation. It helps ensure that clinical decisions are not based only on eminence and individual opinions, but on systematically collected, rigidly reviewed, and openly discussed evidence.
A good academic author, in Dr. Ronellenfitsch’s opinion, must be able to write clearly and precisely. Scientific writing is not about sounding sophisticated when in reality the wording is complicated; it is about making complex ideas understandable without oversimplifying them. Second, intellectual honesty must be the bedrock of all academic writing. This means presenting results transparently, acknowledging limitations, avoiding overstatement, and distinguishing clearly between evidence, interpretation, hypothesis creation and speculation. Third, perseverance is an essential characteristic of an academic author. Writing is rarely perfect in the first draft. Good manuscripts emerge through revision following constructive criticism and sometimes even through rejection, which is perceived as unjustified. Fourth, an academic author needs to display both curiosity and discipline. Curiosity of a free mind drives the creation of hypotheses and scientific questions, while discipline turns those questions into studies, structured manuscripts, and ultimately a contribution to the field. Finally, academic authors should show respect for their readers. The readers’ time is valuable and limited. A good author stays concise and guides the reader through the research questions, the methods used, the findings, and the conclusions and implications as clearly as possible.
Dr. Ronellenfitsch expresses that writing papers is rarely something that happens when there is “free time” appearing all of a sudden by itself for clinician scientists. Writing has to be planned deliberately and treated as an integral part of academic work, not as an optional extra. He tries to allocate protected writing time in small but regular blocks. Even short periods can be productive if concepts are mature and tasks are clearly defined — for example, drafting the introduction, revising one table, answering reviewer comments, or finalizing references. Thus, seemingly large writing projects become manageable when they are divided into specific, realistic tasks. Collaboration is another key element. Writing papers should be a team effort. Clear distribution of responsibilities, early agreement on authorship and timelines, and regular internal deadlines help keep a project moving. Ultimately, writing must be seen as part of the responsibility of being a scientist and doctor. While clinical work is designated to treating patients and improving their health, academic writing should distribute the latest valid evidence leading to changes for the better in actual patient care beyond one’s own institution.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Wiriya Maisat
Wiriya Maisat, MD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. She completed her medical degree with first-class honors from Chiang Mai University and subsequently trained in anesthesiology and cardiovascular and thoracic anesthesia at Siriraj Hospital. She then completed a research fellowship in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Her research interests include perioperative damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), the association between systemic inflammation and postoperative outcomes, and outcome research in adult and pediatric cardiac surgery. Her current project investigates DAMPs in neonates and infants undergoing cardiac surgery, as these molecules may drive postoperative organ dysfunction in this vulnerable population.
In Dr. Maisat’s view, a good academic paper should address a clear, well-justified research question and answer it honestly. The methods should be reproducible, statistics should interrogate the data rather than steer it toward a desired result, and conclusions should be interpreted with balance rather than overstated. Novelty matters, but a good paper does not always need to be novel. It can still contribute meaningfully by adding to what is already known or changing how readers think about a certain clinical problem. She appreciates papers that explain not only what was observed, but also how it happens and how the biology explains the clinical findings. That is why she finds translational research particularly compelling. To start with a clinical problem and work to understand the underlying mechanisms, sometimes through preclinical experiments, and then validate the findings clinically. When it comes together, the work tells a complete story of how things happen, how that affects patient outcomes, and adds to the information needed for possible future treatment.
Dr. Maisat believes that academic writing is an extension of clinical practice and scientific inquiry. It enables her to systematically address research questions and contribute knowledge that could enhance patient outcomes in the future. She finds the process intellectually rewarding, as it compels her to think critically, refine her ideas, and challenge her own assumptions. Contrary to popular belief, she does not consider academic writing to be as time-consuming as many assume, because much of the hard work occurs before she actually sits down to write. A solid methodology and a clear sense of what one wants to tell the readers make the manuscript much easier to write than most people expect. In her experience, developing a strong research proposal can sometimes be more difficult than writing the paper itself.
When preparing a writing, Dr. Maisat thinks that authors should first ask themselves whether their research question is truly meaningful before thinking about publication. A well-written manuscript cannot compensate for a weak or unfocused study concept. During preparation, clarity and logical flow do matter. The paper should tell a coherent scientific story from the rationale and hypothesis all the way through the methods, results, and interpretations. Authors should avoid overstating their findings, especially when working with observational and exploratory data. Transparency in methodology, appropriate use of statistics, and honest acknowledgment of limitations are also important. Finally, always think from the reader's perspective. A manuscript should make complex scientific ideas understandable without sacrificing its rigor.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Felix Hers
Felix Hers is a medical doctor, researcher at the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), and a PhD candidate in vascular surgery at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. His research focuses on two main areas: best practice meetings (BPMs) as a quality improvement instrument in surgical care, and type B aortic dissections (TBAD). Within the BPM domain, his current work examines the effectiveness of these meetings and the group dynamics, and he is actively involved in organising BPMs in clinical practice. Alongside this, he conducts retrospective research on TBAD and is currently developing a dedicated retrospective database to support future research in this area. His work combines clinical auditing, quality improvement, and vascular surgery, aiming to translate structured peer review into better surgical practice.
Dr. Hers highlights common difficulties in academic writing, including maintaining scientific precision while keeping the text readable, and finding the right balance between comprehensive reporting and conciseness. Navigating the different style and format requirements across journals is also a recurring challenge.
As a researcher and employee of DICA, Dr. Hers thinks that time is scarce during certain periods. Writing sometimes happens in the evenings and weekends, alongside organisational responsibilities that compete for time during the working day. Planning and setting small, concrete writing goals help maintain progress without letting manuscripts stall for too long.
In addition, Dr. Hers believes that following reporting guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA is very important. They provide a structured checklist that promotes rigor, reproducibility, and transparency, ensuring that readers and reviewers can properly assess the validity of the article. He has utilized the STROBE guideline for observational research and the PRISMA-ScR guideline for a scoping review published in JTD. Using these frameworks not only improved the quality of the manuscripts but also streamlined the review process. Moreover, they ultimately contribute to the overall quality of scientific literature.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Lam Thao Cuong
Dr. Lam Thao Cuong, MD, PhD, is a thoracic and vascular surgeon at the Thoracic and Vascular Department, University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City, and a lecturer in the Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City. His research focuses on thoracic surgery, vascular surgery, congenital chest wall deformities, peripheral vascular malformations, venous disease, endovascular intervention, and perioperative quality improvement. His recent work includes outcomes of minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum, complications after the Nuss procedure, peripheral vascular malformations, lower-limb vascular disease, and enhanced recovery after surgery in thoracic surgery. Through clinical research based on Vietnamese cohorts, he aims to generate locally relevant evidence that can improve surgical decision-making, patient safety, postoperative recovery, and long-term quality of life.
To Dr. Cuong, what fascinates him most about academic writing is that it transforms daily clinical observations into evidence that can be shared, questioned, and improved by the scientific community. In clinical practice, surgeons often encounter patterns, challenges, and outcomes that may remain local experience if they are not carefully studied and written up. Academic writing provides a disciplined way to organize these observations, compare them with existing knowledge, and communicate them transparently to colleagues in other institutions and countries. It is also a process of self-reflection: while writing, an author must look again at the research question, methods, data quality, interpretation, and clinical implications. For him, this is where academic writing becomes meaningful, not only as a way to publish results, but also as a way to improve clinical thinking, strengthen patient care, and contribute evidence from Vietnam to the international literature.
To keep writing up-to-date, Dr. Cuong usually begins with a clear clinical or research question and then reviews the most recent literature, including original studies, systematic reviews, reporting guidelines, and relevant clinical guidelines. He pays particular attention to high-quality studies, recent evidence, and areas where findings remain inconsistent or where data from low- and middle-income countries are still limited. During manuscript preparation, he regularly updates the reference list rather than relying only on the literature collected at the beginning of the project. He also discusses the interpretation of findings with colleagues from related specialties, because multidisciplinary perspectives often help identify whether the work adds a useful insight or only repeats what is already known. He believes new insights do not always have to come from a completely new technique; they may also come from well-analyzed local data, long-term follow-up, careful subgroup analysis, or a clearer explanation of how evidence can be applied in a specific healthcare context.
Dr. Cuong believes that following reporting guidelines is very important during manuscript preparation. From his perspective, guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD, and CARE are not merely administrative checklists; they help authors present their research in a complete, transparent, and reproducible manner. A well-reported manuscript allows readers, reviewers, and editors to understand exactly how the study was designed, how participants were selected, how outcomes were measured, how analyses were performed, and how limitations should be interpreted. This is especially important in clinical research, where incomplete reporting may lead to overinterpretation of findings or difficulty in comparing results across studies. Reporting guidelines also help authors identify missing information before submission and improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. In his view, using the appropriate guideline from the early planning stage is better than applying it only at the end, because it can strengthen both the conduct and the reporting of the study.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Yasuhiro Norisue
Yasuhiro Norisue, MD, is Deputy Director, Director of the Department of Pulmonary Medicine, and Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Japan. After graduating from Toho University School of Medicine, he completed an internal medicine residency at the University of Hawaii and pulmonary and critical care fellowship at Saint Louis University, obtaining board certification in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, and critical care medicine in the United States. His clinical and academic interests include acute respiratory failure, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, respiratory mechanics, electrical impedance tomography, and end-of-life decision-making in critical care. He has served as Chair of the Japanese ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline Committee and has also contributed to national activities in intensive care ethics, neurocritical care, and respiratory therapy.
In Dr. Norisue’s view, the most important source of meaningful research questions is daily clinical practice. Even after taking a leadership role, he believes clinicians should continue to be actively involved in patient care. Bedside uncertainty often reveals questions that are clinically important but not yet fully answered by existing evidence. When synthesizing evidence, authors should first clarify the clinical question: who the patient is, what decision must be made, and which outcomes matter. Evidence should then be selected not only by methodological quality but also by its relevance to the actual clinical setting. In severe respiratory failure, he finds it particularly valuable to use tools such as electrical impedance tomography and transpulmonary pressure measurement, and to discuss the interpretation of these data with colleagues. Such discussions often help connect physiology, evidence, and bedside decisions.
According to Dr. Norisue, what fascinates him most about academic writing is that it allows clinicians and researchers to share their thinking beyond their own institutions. A clinical question that arises at the bedside can be developed into a manuscript, read by colleagues around the world, and discussed by people with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. He believes that one of the greatest pleasures of academic writing is the chance to engage with some of the brightest researchers and clinicians from around the world. Their feedback often clarifies and sharpens his own thinking, making it more precise and clinically applicable. Thus, academic writing is not merely a means of reporting data; it is a process of refining ideas through dialogue. This is particularly rewarding in critical care, where physiology, evidence, ethics, and real-time decision-making are closely interconnected.
Dr. Norisue believes that disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) is essential in academic writing. A COI does not necessarily mean that a study is biased or unreliable. Many important clinical studies are conducted in collaboration with industry or with support from organizations that have a legitimate interest in the field. However, readers must be able to judge the possibility of influence for themselves. A COI may affect research in many ways, including the choice of research question, study design, selection of outcomes, interpretation of borderline results, and the way conclusions are presented. Even when authors are confident that their judgment was not affected, transparency is necessary because trust in academic writing depends on openness. Clear disclosure allows readers, reviewers, and editors to evaluate the work appropriately.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Yasushi Obase
Dr. Yasushi Obase serves as the Head of the Department of Respiratory Medicine at Sasebo City General Hospital and as a Clinical Professor at the Faculty of Medicine of Nagasaki University. His research focuses on bronchial asthma and chronic cough, and he is also involved in developing the Japanese clinical guidelines for these conditions. As extended research themes, he investigates refractory cough caused by basidiomycetes, the impact of PM2.5 on airway inflammation, and the early detection of respiratory abnormalities through the analysis of lung sounds and voice signals. At his current hospital, he is additionally engaged in community healthcare collaboration, covering infectious diseases, malignancies, and diffuse parenchymal lung diseases.
Dr. Obase asserts that academic writing plays a fundamental role in science because it provides a structured way to share knowledge and ensure that research can be evaluated, reproduced, and built upon. Clear and rigorous writing allows scientific findings to become part of the collective understanding of the field, which is essential for scientific progress.
To keep his work up-to-date in a field that evolves so rapidly, Dr. Obase makes it a habit to continuously follow the latest literature and stay engaged with ongoing discussions in the research community. He also tries to position his work within the broader scientific landscape, identifying gaps or unanswered questions so that his research can offer genuinely new insights rather than simply repeating what is already known.
“Being a scientist or physician certainly comes with a heavy workload, but I consider writing to be an integral part of my research responsibilities. I set aside dedicated time each week for writing, even if only in small increments, so that the manuscript steadily moves forward. I also collaborate closely with co-authors and divide tasks efficiently, which helps maintain momentum and ensures that the writing process remains manageable,” says Dr. Obase.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Terunaga Inage
Dr. Terunaga Inage is a thoracic surgeon interested in minimally invasive diagnostics and therapeutics for thoracic malignancy, robotic and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), and lung transplant. He graduated from Tokai University School of Medicine in 2009 (M.D.) and received his Doctor of Medicine (Ph.D.) from Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine in 2017 in Japan. He completed his residency and fellowship in Thoracic Surgery at Chiba University Hospital in Japan and lung transplant fellowship at Toronto General Hospital in Canada. He has been a staff surgeon, Division of General Thoracic Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, since 2020. Recently, he has been focusing on minimally invasive diagnostics and therapeutics for thoracic malignancy, biomarker testing using biopsied materials, image analysis of endobronchial ultrasound, and the development of devices for interventional pulmonology.
Common difficulties in academic writing, according to Dr. Inage, include developing a clear thesis statement, organizing ideas logically, and synthesizing information rather than merely summarizing it. Other major challenges include maintaining a formal tone, using precise vocabulary, and applying proper citation methods.
Dr. Inage prefers shorter daily writing sessions over longer blocks on weekends. He finds that dedicating one hour per day is more productive than attempting extended writing over the weekend.
In addition, Dr. Inage points out that reporting guidelines help authors present their work clearly, transparently, and completely. These are not merely administrative checklists; they enhance the quality and credibility of a manuscript.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Anam Umar
Dr. Anam Umar is an Internal Medicine physician affiliated with UAB St. Vincent’s East in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. In addition to her clinical work as a hospitalist, she is actively involved in clinical research, quality improvement initiatives, and academic writing. Her academic interests include patient safety, healthcare quality improvement, electronic health record usability, and rare pulmonary diseases. She has presented research at national conferences, including ATS and CHEST, and enjoys participating in multidisciplinary collaborations focused on improving healthcare delivery and patient outcomes. Outside of medicine, she enjoys traveling with her family, exploring national parks, hiking, and pursuing new hobbies and outdoor activities.
Dr. Umar considers academic writing essential in science because it allows researchers and clinicians to communicate discoveries, share experiences, and build upon existing knowledge. It creates a permanent scientific record that helps guide patient care, future research, and policy decisions. In medicine, especially, academic writing also allows physicians to share rare cases, unexpected outcomes, and quality improvement efforts that may help improve healthcare systems and patient safety worldwide.
According to Dr. Umar, balancing clinical responsibilities and research can be challenging, especially while working in busy hospital settings. She usually works on writing in smaller, consistent blocks of time rather than waiting for long, uninterrupted periods. She also tries to stay involved in projects that genuinely interest her clinically, which makes the writing process more meaningful and sustainable. Collaboration, organization, and maintaining realistic goals are important in managing both clinical duties and academic work.
In addition, Dr. Umar believes that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is crucial for protecting patient rights, privacy, safety, and maintaining ethical standards in research. It ensures that studies are conducted responsibly and that risks to participants are minimized. Without IRB approval, research may violate institutional and ethical regulations, potentially harming participants and compromising the credibility and publishability of the work. In many cases, studies conducted without appropriate IRB oversight cannot be published or formally presented.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Albert Teng
Dr. Albert Teng is a final-year Respiratory and Critical Care Senior Resident at Singapore General Hospital in Singapore. His clinical and research interests lie primarily in Critical Care Medicine and Interstitial Lung Disease. His recent research projects have explored the microbiological yield of bronchoscopy and the impact of pre-procedural antimicrobial exposure on diagnostic outcomes. He is also interested in translational and outcomes-based research that can directly improve patient care and clinical decision-making. In addition to research, he is passionate about medical education and collaborative academic work. He believes that meaningful clinical research should ultimately bridge the gap between evidence generation and real-world patient care.
Dr. Teng believes that academic writing is crucial for sharing, scrutinizing, and systematically building upon knowledge. Medicine advances not only through clinical experience, but also through the careful documentation and communication of evidence. Good academic writing transforms observations into knowledge that can influence practice, guide future research, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. It also creates a permanent scientific record that enables transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration across institutions and countries. Beyond publishing results, academic writing encourages critical thinking and intellectual discipline. It compels authors to assess evidence impartially, organize ideas coherently, and convey complex concepts efficiently. In many respects, academic writing serves as the link between scientific discovery and its meaningful application in clinical practice.
Dr. Teng emphasizes that being an effective author involves more than just having scientific knowledge. Critical thinking is essential to ask meaningful questions and interpret findings objectively. Equally important is clarity in communication — the ability to present complex ideas in a concise, logical, and accessible manner. Good authors must also possess discipline and perseverance. Academic writing often involves multiple revisions, critical feedback, and occasional rejection, all of which require resilience and continuous improvement. Attention to detail is another crucial skill, especially in data interpretation, referencing, and maintaining scientific accuracy. Finally, collaboration is increasingly important in modern research. Strong authors listen to co-authors, reviewers, and mentors, and are open to refining their work through constructive discussion. In his opinion, humility and curiosity are qualities that distinguish truly impactful researchers.
“One memorable experience during academic writing was working on a project involving bronchoscopy outcomes in immunocompromised patients. What initially appeared to be a straightforward retrospective study became far more complex when we realized how significantly prior antimicrobial exposure could influence microbiological yield and interpretation of results. During the writing process, our team spent many hours debating how best to present findings that were clinically meaningful while remaining scientifically rigorous. Some of the most valuable insights actually emerged during manuscript revisions and reviewer feedback, which challenged us to think more deeply about the clinical implications of our data. That experience reminded me that academic writing is not simply about publishing results — it is a process of refining ideas, questioning assumptions, and continuously learning from others in the scientific community,” says Dr. Teng.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Daniel Carrera
Dr. Daniel Carrera is a general surgery resident at George Washington University. He earned his medical degree from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and a Bachelor of Science in Neuroscience from the University of Arizona. Driven by an early conviction that meaningful clinical advances are forged in the laboratory, he has pursued research ranging from basic to translational to clinical outcomes database analysis. His current investigative focus centers on evaluating clinical outcomes and innovations in transplant and thoracic surgery, alongside health disparities research. Aspiring to a career as an academic surgeon-scientist, he balances his operative training with a profound commitment to medical education, research, and mentorship for underrepresented minority trainees.
From Dr. Carrera’s perspective, academic writing serves as the foundational bridge connecting raw data to actionable clinical discovery. In medicine, research cannot exist in a vacuum; its ultimate value relies on how effectively it is communicated, scrutinized, and integrated into practice. For a surgeon-scientist, writing is the primary vehicle for shifting clinical paradigms and introducing surgical innovation. It translates technical discoveries made at the lab bench into structured narratives that directly influence patient care at the bedside. In addition, academic writing serves as a permanent, peer-reviewed record that promotes scientific accountability and reproducibility. It enables researchers to transparently question outdated conventions, analyze trends in practice, and highlight systemic health inequities, ultimately aiming to establish new standards of care.
Dr. Carrera highlights that data sharing is crucial in modern research. Publicly sharing research data, code, and modeling methodologies is foundational to establishing true transparency and reproducibility. When researchers provide comprehensive access to their analyses, data, and statistical code, they allow the broader scientific community to independently verify, replicate, and build directly upon their findings. This openness is vital when there can be so much variability in how studies are conducted. Sharing open data helps prevent duplicate research efforts, makes better use of funding, and speeds up the process of translating discoveries into practical applications. Ultimately, it reinforces public and academic trust, ensuring that clinical decisions are permanently anchored to verifiable scientific truth.
Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. According to Dr. Carrera, when synthesizing evidence, the primary objective is to build an objective foundation for the question authors are trying to answer. He recommends using a broad approach to discovering evidence and prioritize methodological quality and data reliability; seeking out conflicting data, directly addressing disparate results between datasets, and evaluating variations in study design; remaining aware of the external context of the study and avoid finding data simply to reinforce one’s point; and lastly, maintaining transparency regarding what the data can and cannot tell you based on its limitations.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Dominik Lobinger
Dr. Dominik Lobinger is a resident in thoracic surgery at München Klinik Bogenhausen, an academic teaching hospital affiliated with the Technical University of Munich. As part of his doctoral thesis (Dr. med.) research at TranslaTUM – Center for Translational Cancer Research at the Technical University of Munich, his scientific interest focused primarily on the role of heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) as a potential biomarker in oncology. Guided by the “bench-to-bedside” principle, he aims to translate research findings into meaningful improvements in patient care and surgical outcomes. In addition to his research activities, he is completing his training in thoracic surgery with a special focus on minimally invasive surgical techniques, including robotic approaches, as well as oncological and septic thoracic surgery.
According to Dr. Lobinger, a good scientific paper addresses a complex research question in a clear, concise, and understandable manner. Beyond presenting robust data, it should provide insights into the practical implications of its findings and demonstrate how they may contribute to improving patient care and clinical outcomes.
Dr. Lobinger believes that avoiding bias begins with a well-designed study and a rigorous experimental framework. Data collection should be robust, transparent, and reproducible, while results must be interpreted critically and objectively. Furthermore, conclusions should be supported by a balanced and comprehensive review of the existing literature.
In addition, Dr. Lobinger indicates that scientific thinking and research are fundamental pillars of modern medicine. Setbacks and challenges are an inevitable part of the scientific process, but they should never discourage researchers from pursuing their goals. Progress is achieved step by step, and every contribution - no matter how small - helps advance knowledge and ultimately improve patient care. Those who engage in daily clinical practice with curiosity and an open mind can discover significant scientific questions and opportunities to contribute to scientific advancement. The most important step is to remain persistent and never lose sight of the potential impact that research can have on patients' lives.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Kazuhisa Tanaka
Kazuhisa Tanaka, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Thoracic Surgery at Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His clinical and research interests focus on thoracic oncology, minimally invasive thoracic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery, surgical device innovation, and the management of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome. He is actively involved in research on perioperative treatment strategies for non-small cell lung cancer, including surgery following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, as well as studies on postoperative complications such as prolonged air leakage. His recent work also includes optimization of surgical education and development of novel approaches to improve patient outcomes and quality of life after thoracic surgery. He has contributed to multiple clinical and translational research projects published in international thoracic surgery and oncology journals.
In Dr. Tanaka’s view, an excellent academic paper addresses an important clinical or scientific issue with a clear objective, a sound methodology, and an honest interpretation of the results. In the fields of thoracic surgery and oncology, he believes that a valuable paper not only demonstrates statistically significant findings but also provides results that are clinically meaningful and applicable to daily practice. Clarity and reproducibility are also essential. Readers must be able to easily understand how the research was conducted and evaluate its strengths and limitations. Furthermore, influential papers often raise new questions and stimulate further research. Even studies yielding negative results can be of significant importance if they are carefully designed and provide reliable evidence for the field.
To ensure his research and writing remain up to date, Dr. Tanaka regularly reviews recently published literature in the fields of thoracic surgery, oncology, and perioperative medicine, focusing particularly on new findings related to minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery, immunotherapy, and perioperative management. He also actively participates in academic conferences and engages in discussions with colleagues at other institutions, which allows him to stay abreast of current trends and unresolved clinical challenges. When writing papers, he strives not only to summarize existing evidence but also to identify practical gaps between clinical research and actual surgical practice. He is convinced that new insights often emerge from carefully analyzing daily clinical experiences and integrating them with the latest scientific evidence. Furthermore, he believes that collaboration with multidisciplinary teams and the continuous reevaluation of surgical outcomes are essential for proposing research topics that are both clinically relevant and scientifically meaningful.
“One of my most memorable experiences in academic writing was working on a study of staple line reinforcement materials for preventing postoperative air leakage after lung resection. Initially, we believed that most postoperative complications could be explained mainly by surgical techniques or intraoperative findings. However, as we analyzed the cases more carefully, we realized that the selection and application of stapler reinforcement materials could significantly influence postoperative outcomes, especially in patients with fragile lung tissue, such as emphysema. Interestingly, this insight emerged not from a formal conference but from a casual conversation with a colleague as we reviewed a difficult case after surgery. This experience reminded me that important research questions are often hidden in daily clinical practice. Academic writing is not only a process of reporting data, but also a process to transform clinical experience into knowledge that may improve patient care,” says Dr. Tanaka.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Lamia Aljundi
Dr. Lamia Aljundi is an interventional pulmonologist and Assistant Professor at Loma Linda University. She was born in Syria, and she grew up in a multicultural city in the United Arab Emirates, where she received her medical degree and graduated third in her class (Cum Laude). She later moved to the United States to continue her medical training, completing her pulmonary and critical care fellowship at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, followed by an interventional pulmonology fellowship at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. She is particularly interested in advanced bronchoscopy, airway disease, and medical education, and is very much fascinated by the rapid technological evolution occurring within interventional pulmonology.
In Dr. Aljundi’s view, academic writing is essential to advancing patient care, particularly in a rapidly evolving field like interventional pulmonology, where new technologies are introduced frequently. It allows physicians and researchers to critically evaluate emerging techniques, share experiences, and collectively build evidence that guides safer and more effective clinical practice.
Interventional pulmonology is a field that is closely intertwined with industry and technological innovation. While this collaboration has accelerated progress, it also makes academic research especially important. Physicians have a responsibility to evaluate new technologies objectively and report findings transparently, regardless of whether the results are favorable or unfavorable. Academic writing ultimately serves patients by helping ensure that innovation remains grounded in scientific rigor and evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Aljundi emphasizes that integrity and genuine curiosity are among the most important qualities an author should possess. Authors should be motivated not simply by producing positive or impressive results, but by contributing meaningful knowledge to the existing literature. Research findings are not always favorable or expected, and publishing such results can sometimes feel uncomfortable—particularly when they challenge assumptions, technologies, or established practices. However, physicians and researchers have a responsibility to their colleagues and patients to report findings truthfully, provided the research was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor and transparency regarding its limitations.
Dr. Aljundi believes that responsible data sharing is of great importance in scientific research because it promotes transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration. Sharing data allows other researchers to validate findings, identify limitations, perform additional analyses, and build upon prior work, which ultimately strengthens the scientific process. This is especially important in fields involving emerging technologies, where early studies are often small and single-centered. Broader access to data can help the medical community better understand patterns, outcomes, and potential complications across different practice settings. Additionally, scientific progress is rarely linear. And advances arise through cumulative observations, open discussion, and the willingness of researchers to share both successes and shortcomings. Data sharing is therefore essential to the continued growth of medicine and patient care.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Luis Eduardo Jiménez Pineda
Dr. Luis Eduardo Jiménez Pineda is a pulmonologist trained at the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias Ismael Cosío Villegas (INER), Mexico’s foremost national referral center for respiratory diseases. He is currently pursuing a fellowship in Interventional Pulmonology, which will further strengthen his expertise in advanced bronchoscopic procedures. His clinical and academic interests focus on the diagnosis and management of complex pulmonary diseases, with an emphasis on interventional techniques developed within a high-volume tertiary care setting.
Patzy Marcela Leal
Dr. Patzy Marcela Leal is a pulmonologist with advanced specialization in interventional bronchoscopy. She completed her training at the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (INER), Mexico’s premier reference center for pulmonary diseases. Further, she expanded her expertise through international rotations at the Fundación Jiménez Díaz in Madrid, Spain, and the Hospital de Infecciosas Francisco Javier Muñiz in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This combination of rigorous national formation and international exposure has shaped her into a clinician with a broad, cross-cultural perspective on the management of complex respiratory conditions. Her work in interventional pulmonology reflects a commitment to incorporating the highest standards of diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy into patient care, and her international experience has strengthened her dedication to advancing the field through academic collaboration and evidence-based practice.
Olivia Sánchez Cabral
Dr. Olivia Sánchez Cabral is an interventional pulmonologist dedicated to advanced diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy. Her clinical and academic work encompasses endobronchial ultrasound, transbronchial cryobiopsy, airway interventions, and minimally invasive approaches for the diagnosis and management of thoracic diseases. She has played a pivotal role in advancing interventional pulmonology in Mexico and across Latin America through clinical practice, research, and medical education, including her appointment as Co-Director of the Interventional Pulmonology Fellowship of the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax (ALAT). Her research interests focus on improving diagnostic yield, tissue acquisition, and procedural safety in bronchoscopy, with particular emphasis on mediastinal disease, peripheral pulmonary lesions, lung cancer, and benign respiratory conditions. She is committed to promoting high-quality, patient-centered respiratory care and fostering academic collaboration throughout the region.
JTD: What do you regard as a good academic paper?
Drs. Pineda, Leal, and Cabral: A good academic paper, in our view, is one that addresses a clearly defined clinical or scientific question with methodological rigor and intellectual honesty. It must be grounded in solid evidence, present its findings transparently, and acknowledge its limitations without apology. Beyond technical correctness, however, a truly impactful paper is one that contributes meaningfully to the field—one that clinicians and researchers can actually apply to improve patient care or to open new lines of inquiry. Writing from a reference center such as INER provides a unique vantage point: the sheer volume and complexity of cases we encounter generate data that is not easily replicated elsewhere. In that context, a good paper is also one that faithfully communicates that experience to the broader scientific community, ensuring that knowledge accumulated in specialized centers reaches those who need it most.
JTD: What authors have to bear in mind during the preparation of a paper?
Drs. Pineda, Leal, and Cabral: Authors should always begin with a clearly articulated research question—one that is relevant, original, and answerable with the data at hand. From there, the choice of methodology must be appropriate and consistently applied. We would emphasize the importance of knowing your target audience: the way you frame a question, structure your argument, and present your data should reflect an understanding of who will read and use your work. Additionally, authors must be meticulous about the literature review, ensuring that their work is situated within the existing body of knowledge and that they are genuinely contributing something new. Perhaps most importantly, authors should maintain scientific integrity at every stage—from data collection to interpretation. In a specialty like interventional pulmonology, where many procedures are still being standardized and evidence is actively being built, the accuracy and honesty of each publication carry significant weight for the clinical community at large.
JTD: Is there any interesting story during academic writing that you would like to share with us?
Drs. Pineda, Leal, and Cabral: One experience that stands out took place during the data collection phase of this project. We were compiling clinical records from a significant number of patients who had undergone interventional pulmonology procedures at INER over several years—a process that was both painstaking and deeply illuminating. At one point, while reviewing a particularly complex series of cases together, we realized that what had initially seemed like a routine data compilation was actually revealing patterns in procedure outcomes that had not been formally described in our population before. That moment of recognition—when raw numbers begin to tell a story with real clinical implications—was a powerful reminder of why this work matters. It reinforced for us that academic writing, at its best, is not merely an exercise in documentation, but an act of discovery. That realization has stayed with us and continues to motivate our academic pursuits.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Barbara Wilkey
Dr. Barbara Wilkey is a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist at the University of Colorado, where she also serves as Director of Anesthesia for Thoracic Transplantation. Her healthcare career began as a registered nurse in the cardiothoracic surgery intensive care unit at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, Florida. Inspired by her clinical experiences, she advanced her training to become a Physician Assistant before ultimately pursuing a career in Anesthesiology. She received her medical degree from the University of Florida, with residency and fellowship completed at the University of Colorado. Her clinical and research work focuses primarily on thoracic transplantation, with a particular emphasis on lung transplantation.
Dr. Wilkey believes that a strong academic paper significantly contributes to the fundamental missions of academia: education and discovery. At its best, it either advances knowledge, synthesizes existing evidence in a way that deepens understanding, or raises important new questions. Beyond simply presenting data, a good paper tells a clear and compelling story, situating its findings within the broader field or creating a new one. It should be rigorous in its methodology, transparent in its limitations, and thoughtful in its interpretation. Ultimately, the most impactful papers inspire further inquiry—encouraging readers to challenge assumptions, refine ideas, and continue pushing the boundaries of the discipline.
In Dr. Wilkey’s view, avoiding bias begins with recognizing that no single perspective fully captures a complex issue. She often thinks of this as “being both the 6 and the 9”—understanding that others may view the same evidence differently depending on their vantage point. Good scholarly writing requires actively engaging with alternative interpretations, acknowledging competing viewpoints, and being transparent about one’s own assumptions. This includes critically evaluating sources, avoiding selective reporting, and ensuring that conclusions are supported by evidence rather than preconceived beliefs. Maintaining humility and intellectual curiosity throughout the writing process is essential to producing balanced and credible work.
Lastly, Dr. Wilkey would like to say a few words to other researchers, “Stay persistent and believe in the value of your work. Academic writing can be a long and often challenging process, filled with revisions, setbacks, and uncertainty. Progress is rarely linear, but each step forward—no matter how small—contributes to the larger goal. Focus on steady, consistent effort. Over time, those efforts accumulate, and you will reach the finish line. Your contributions matter, and the collective advancement of science depends on researchers who are willing to keep going, even when the path feels difficult.”
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Masatoshi Kurihara
Masatoshi Kurihara, MD, PhD, is a veteran thoracic surgeon affiliated with Nissan Koseikai Tamagawa Hospital, Japan. He earned his medical degree from Chiba University School of Medicine in 1979 and his medical PhD in 1987. He trained as a clinical fellow in thoracic surgery at the National Cancer Center Hospital in 1990, then worked as a staff surgeon at Nissan Koseikai Tamagawa Hospital from 1991 onward. He later served in leadership roles as the Director of the Pneumothorax Research Center (2002) and the Director of the Nissan Koseikai Medical Research Institute (2013), before becoming Honorary Director of the Pneumothorax Research Center in 2025. He has received three major professional awards: the 1999 EAES Society Award, the 2010 Japan Society for Endometriosis Society Award, and the 2012 President’s Award from the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. He holds board-certified instructor credentials in multiple surgical associations, serves as a councilor for chest surgery organizations, and is an honorary member of the Japanese Society of Pneumothorax and Cystic Lung Diseases, focusing his work on thoracic surgery and research on pneumothorax.
Dr. Kurihara emphasizes the importance of ensuring that academic papers are both logical and concise. He believes that authors should carefully consider how to structure their theoretical framework to effectively persuade readers. He views statistical analysis as just one tool for persuasion, rather than the sole means of evaluating data based on statistical significance. By maintaining curiosity and a spirit of inquiry, along with continuous effort, authors can ultimately achieve successful outcomes.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Yuichiro Machida
Dr. Yuichiro Machida is a Lecturer in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Nippon Medical School. He graduated from Kanazawa Medical University in 2004, joined its Department of Thoracic Surgery in 2007, and earned his Ph.D. in 2011. Since 2021, he has served as a faculty member at Nippon Medical School, where he specializes in thoracic surgery, diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy, and the education of medical students and junior physicians. His research focuses on the biological aggressiveness of lung cancer, combining basic and clinical approaches. He has investigated the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor invasion and metastasis and has expanded his work to translational research integrating imaging, pathological, and clinical data. His current interests include preoperative risk assessment, imaging biomarkers, and the clinicopathological characteristics of lung cancer, with the goal of improving precision diagnosis and treatment.
Dr. Machida believes that academic writing is essential for communicating scientific discoveries clearly, accurately, and transparently. It enables researchers to share new knowledge, allows others to critically evaluate and reproduce findings, and provides a permanent scientific record for future research. Through peer review and scholarly discussion, academic writing also helps refine scientific ideas and promotes collaboration and continuous improvement. In clinical medicine, good academic writing is particularly important because it connects research findings with clinical practice. It not only presents results but also explains their significance, limitations, and potential implications for patient care.
According to Dr. Machida, the quality of evidence synthesis depends largely on the relevance and reliability of the selected studies. Authors should begin with a clearly defined research question and prioritize studies that directly address it. Study design, sample size, methodological quality, patient population, outcome definitions, and potential sources of bias should all be carefully evaluated. The recency of the evidence and its applicability to the clinical setting are also important. Authors should compare findings across multiple studies rather than relying on a single report. Differences in methodology and study populations should be considered when interpreting inconsistent results. Most importantly, authors must remain objective, acknowledge uncertainty and limitations, and avoid selectively citing only studies that support their own conclusions.
In addition, Dr. Machida highlights that following reporting guidelines is essential. Guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD, and CARE improve the completeness, transparency, and reproducibility of scientific reports. They help authors present the research question, methodology, results, and limitations in a structured and consistent manner, allowing reviewers and readers to assess the validity and applicability of the findings. Reporting guidelines should ideally be considered from the study-design stage rather than only at the time of manuscript preparation. Using the appropriate checklist can prevent important information from being omitted and improve both the scientific quality and readability of the manuscript. It may also facilitate peer review and publication while promoting high standards of research integrity.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Takumi Kawase
Takumi Kawase, MD, PhD, is a Cardiovascular surgeon in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at Osaka Metropolitan University. He learned the fundamentals of cardiac surgery during his residency at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. He currently performs surgery for adult valvular, aortic, and coronary artery diseases at Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital, while researching the structure and function of the mitral and tricuspid valves. He also received specialized training in adult congenital heart disease surgery at Nagoya City University. His current clinical and research interests focus on minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). He has experience performing valve replacement through MICS approaches and, more recently, has been involved in robot-assisted cardiac surgery, particularly mitral valve repair. Through both clinical practice and research, he aims to contribute to the advancement of less invasive and more effective surgical treatment for patients with cardiovascular disease.
In Dr. Kawase’s opinion, a good academic paper addresses clinically relevant questions and has the potential to improve patient care. He particularly values research that can be translated into everyday clinical practice and contribute to better outcomes for patients.
Dr. Kawase emphasizes that an author should possess perseverance, curiosity, and a strong commitment to advancing medical knowledge. Equally important is the motivation to translate research findings into clinical practice so that patients can ultimately benefit from the work.
“I chose to publish in JTD because it is a well-respected journal that publishes a wide range of clinically relevant research in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery,” says Dr. Kawase.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Gabriella R. Rasmussen
Gabriella R. Rasmussen, MD, earned her medical degree from the University of Utah and is currently a general surgery resident at the Medical University of South Carolina, where she is pursuing a career in cardiothoracic surgery. Her academic work focuses on thoracic surgical oncology, lung transplantation, complex postoperative complications, and outcomes in lung and foregut surgery. Recent projects have examined non-small cell lung cancer in patients with prior malignancies, the surgical management of early-stage small cell lung cancer, and disparities in thoracic surgical care. She has also contributed to clinical research and educational work involving complex thoracic and foregut disease. Her goal is to combine cardiothoracic surgical practice with collaborative, outcomes-focused research.
According to Dr. Rasmussen, academic writing is an important part of remaining curious. Reading the work of others often raises new questions and inspires ideas that she may not have considered otherwise. At its core, academic writing allows researchers to share knowledge, learn from one another, and contribute to the collective advancement of medicine. It is an altruistic process in many ways. Researchers take what they have learned from their patients, their data, and their experiences and make it available so that others can build upon it and ultimately improve patient care.
Dr. Rasmussen thinks an author needs both curiosity and tenacity. Research projects often face delays, unexpected obstacles, or results that differ from the original hypothesis. A good author has to remain persistent while also being flexible enough to follow what the data actually shows. Research requires the ability to accept setbacks, learn from them, and continue moving the project forward. Authors also need to be open to feedback, because strong academic writing is almost always the result of multiple rounds of critique and revision. Lastly, they should be willing to rely on mentors and more experienced researchers. Mentorship and guidance are crucial, particularly early in an academic career.
In addition, Dr. Rasmussen highlights that responsible data sharing is very important. Developing an individual research database can require a significant amount of time, effort, and resources. When data can be shared, it allows researchers to answer additional questions more efficiently and may reduce unnecessary duplication of work. Data sharing also improves transparency. It allows other researchers to validate findings, reproduce analyses, and identify potential limitations or errors. This strengthens the credibility of scientific research and helps keep investigators accountable. Ultimately, data sharing supports the same broader purpose as academic writing itself: improving our collective understanding and advancing medicine in a way that benefits patients.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Federico Monaca
Federico Monaca graduated from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome in 2012 and completed his medical oncology residency at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli with full marks and honours. He is currently a Senior Clinical Research Fellow at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, where he leads clinical and translational research projects investigating predictors of treatment response in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Alongside his clinical work, he is completing a PhD exploring the role of cancer stem cells in lung cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. His wider research interests include thoracic oncology, biomarkers, real-world evidence and the development of novel treatments. He has contributed to more than 40 clinical trials as a sub-investigator and has authored over 40 peer-reviewed publications and conference abstracts. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JTD: What is important about academic writing?
Dr. Monaca: Academic writing is how we turn a clinical observation or research result into knowledge that other people can examine, challenge and use. In oncology, clinical trials tell us whether a treatment can work under controlled conditions, but our patients are often older, frailer and more diverse than trial populations. Writing allows us to report real-world effectiveness and safety, share unexpected outcomes and preserve lessons that might otherwise remain within one clinic. It also forces us to think clearly: to separate evidence from opinion, acknowledge limitations and communicate uncertainty honestly. For me, academic writing is not simply about publishing a paper. It is part of responsible clinical practice. By sharing our work, we invite scrutiny, collaboration and new ideas, and we may help another clinician make a better-informed decision for a patient.
JTD: How can one ensure that academic writing is critical?
Dr. Monaca: Critical writing begins before the first sentence is written. I try to ask whether the research question is genuinely relevant, whether the chosen methods can answer it, and whether there are alternative explanations for the findings. I then read my own work as a sceptical reviewer would: What have I overlooked? Am I overstating the result? Would the conclusion remain convincing from a different perspective? Discussion with colleagues is invaluable, particularly when there is constructive challenge rather than simple agreement.
JTD: Is there an interesting story from your academic writing experience that you would like to share?
Dr. Monaca: One of the first case reports I wrote concerned a patient with small-cell lung cancer who had exhausted standard options and started a treatment that was new at the time in the third-line setting. At that point, his prognosis was expected to be measured in months. The response proved far more durable than anticipated; nearly three years later, he remains on treatment, and I review him every two weeks. This experience changed how I think about academic writing. Initially, the report felt like a way of documenting an unusual outcome. Over time, it became a careful record of what may be possible, without pretending that a single case can establish efficacy. It also reminded me that behind every data point is a person. Sharing exceptional outcomes can generate questions for future research, while seeing this patient doing well remains a clinical privilege and a powerful motivation to write.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Tomonori Nakanoko
Tomonori Nakanoko, MD, PhD, is a gastrointestinal and esophageal surgeon at the Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. His clinical and research interests focus primarily on esophageal cancer, particularly minimally invasive and robot-assisted esophagectomy, upper mediastinal lymph node dissection, and multidisciplinary treatment for locally advanced disease. His recent work has focused on developing reproducible surgical techniques for robot-assisted esophagectomy, improving the safety of mediastinal lymphadenectomy, and identifying preoperative factors associated with tracheobronchial invasion in advanced esophageal cancer. He is also involved in research on conversion surgery for initially unresectable esophageal cancer and perioperative management after esophagectomy. In addition to clinical research, he is actively engaged in surgical education and the training of younger surgeons.
Dr. Nakanoko thinks that academic writing is essential because it allows researchers to share their clinical experiences and research findings beyond their own institutions. In daily clinical practice, they often encounter questions, difficulties, and new ideas that may also be relevant to other physicians. By carefully analyzing and publishing these experiences, they can turn individual observations into knowledge that can be examined, discussed, and further developed by the medical community. Academic writing is also important because it creates a lasting record of their work. Ultimately, he believes its greatest value is that knowledge generated from patients and clinical practice can be passed on to other physicians and, hopefully, contribute to better care for future patients.
In Dr. Nakanoko’s view, honesty, curiosity, and responsibility are essential qualities for an author. Researchers should remain curious about unanswered questions in daily clinical practice and examine them objectively. At the same time, honesty is particularly important. Authors should report not only favorable results but also unexpected or negative findings without trying to make the story more attractive than the data actually show. They also have a responsibility to ensure that their conclusions are supported by the evidence and to clearly acknowledge the limitations of their work. He believes that maintaining this attitude is fundamental to producing research that other clinicians and researchers can trust and build upon.
“Like many clinician-scientists, I find it difficult to secure long, uninterrupted periods for writing because clinical responsibilities must always come first. Therefore, I try not to wait until I have a large amount of free time. Instead, I write little by little whenever possible, often early in the morning or during short periods between clinical duties. I also try to keep research closely connected to my daily clinical practice. Many of my research questions arise directly from difficulties or uncertainties that I encounter while treating patients or performing surgery. This makes research and clinical work feel less like separate activities. Although balancing the two is not always easy, I believe that continuing to write, even in small steps, is the most practical way for me to complete a paper,” says Dr. Nakanoko.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)