In 2022, many authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as authors. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

Outstanding Authors (2022)

Paul Van Schil, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Garvit D. Khatri, University of Washington, USA

Nainesh Parikh, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, USA

Apichaya Sripariwuth, Naresuan University, Thailand

Keng Hoong Chiam, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Malaysia

Lucas Wiegand, University of South Florida Health, USA

Dragan Subotic, General Hospital Acibadem/Bel Medic Belgrade, Serbia

Takayuki Kosaka, National Hospital Organization Takasaki General Medical Center, Japan

Guglielmo Mantica, University of Genoa, Italy

Giorgio Lo Iacono, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

Paul Van Schil

Paul Van Schil was born on July 7, 1957 in Antwerp, Belgium. He graduated from medical school with great honour in 1982 at the University of Antwerp. After completing his training in general surgery he became a fellow in the department of cardiothoracic surgery at the Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. His doctoral thesis was entitled “Bronchial sleeve resection for lung cancer: long-term results”. In 1990 he became a staff member at the department of surgery of the Antwerp University Hospital in Belgium. Currently, he is professor in thoracic and vascular surgery at the Faculty of Medicine and chair of the department of thoracic and vascular surgery of the University Hospital of Antwerp. Since October 2013 he is president of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. His main interests are thoracic and vascular surgery with a special emphasis on lung cancer staging and therapy, lung metastases and mesothelioma. You may find more about Dr. Van Schil’s work in his faculty page.

AMJ: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?

Dr. Van Schil: To write an academic paper, you really have to be a “complete, almost universal author” with  a lot of high-level qualities. Academic research starts with a specific research question which is further developed. This question should be relevant, timely and well-developed in order to advance our scientific knowledge. A thorough literature search should be performed which is time-consuming, followed by a detailed research plan which is submitted for peer review. Methods and results should be clearly described in order to be reproducible. The discussion part should put the research findings in perspective to our current knowledge. Areas for further research should be indicated. The reference list should include the most recent references on the research topic.

At the present time, finding funding for academic research is quite difficult and involves a large administrative burden including data protection regulations. When animals or patients are involved, getting approval of an ethical committee may be quite cumbersome.

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

Dr. Van Schil: The principal authors should work fully independently and not be influenced by any commercial company or by personal interests. The research plan should be submitted to peer review to detect any possible biases which may range from selection bias to reporting bias. Most importantly, any commercial interests should be excluded. Approval by an independent ethical committee certainly reduces the risk of an important bias in the research plan.

What I find helpful is to apply the same criteria used for reviewing a paper from another institution to judge your own work: is the research question innovative and timely? Are  the methods well-explained? Are the results clearly described and presented in a clear way in order to be able to reproduce the scientific experiment?

AMJ: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Dr. Van Schil: Academic writing brings you at the forefront of scientific research, allowing you to explore unresolved questions. When your research is of high quality, it may be presented at major scientific meetings, giving you an opportunity to interact with colleagues working in the same research area. Any advancement in a specific domain brings up new questions that require continued research with new treatment plans or study designs, in some cases comprising different research groups. This is especially important in translational research which may impact diagnostic and treatment algorithms. It gives great satisfaction when your research findings have obtained general recognition and has led to changes in current guidelines or recommendations.

AMJ: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?

Dr. Van Schil: It is very important to declare any COI to the readership as these might have had a major influence on the study design, methods and final results. Especially in academic research, the investigators should not obtain any personal advantages or enrichment by performing the research. COIs should be taken broadly as even important positions in large international associations may have an influence on the conduct of a study. Any personal financial advantages are to be avoided and these should be clearly indicated.

When academic research is free of any bias, it is very well-positioned to provide high-quality data and results with a high scientific level. This gives rise to a final paper that has been submitted to thorough peer review and will be highly respected by the scientific community.

Garvit D. Khatri

Dr. Garvit D Khatri is presently working in the Department of Radiology at University of Washington. He serves multiple roles on the hospital quality and safety committee and plays a pivotal role in graduate medical education, defining education policies for all the residency programs. He has special interest in abdominal imaging, particularly the genitourinary system.

Dr. Khatri was born in Sawai Madhopur, India. He graduated medical school from the prestigious Maharaja Sayajj Rao Medical college Baroda in 2012 and completed his radiology residency from VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Subsequently he trained further at University of Washington, Seattle. Additionally, he has finished smaller educational programs from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Beth Israel Medical Center (Harvard), Boston.

Dr. Khatri has authored several peer reviewed papers and presented at multiple national and international conferences. He has given presentations in US, Europe, Middle east and India. He has also received multiple awards for his research. He is on the editorial board of RSNA case collection and served as guest reviewer for multiple journals. He currently is member of the global expert panel for Artificial intelligence in imaging on the international organization of ASER and part of the disease focus panel for endometriosis in the Society of Abdominal Radiology.

He currently resides in Seattle, WA with his wife and enjoys life, travelling and soccer.

AMJ: Could you summarize the main points of your article "Granulomatosis with polyangiitis presenting as renal mass: a literature review of imaging findings”, published in AMJ recently.

Dr. Khatri: Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA), is a multisystem autoimmune systemic vasculitis mainly affecting the sino-nasal, pulmonary, and renal systems. One of the rare renal manifestations is as a pseudo mass. These can be confused with renal cell carcinoma and create both diagnostic and management dilemma. As of today, only 27 pathologically proven cases have been reported in literature, where GPA presented as renal mass. This manuscript review summarizes the salient imaging findings in all these published cases, with the aim to help delineate common imaging features of GPA pseudo mass. We recommend increased recognition of this entity, as a differential diagnosis of renal masses in GPA patients, so that these patients ultimately are subjected to less surgical morbidity and mortality. Knowledge of this would help hint towards a benign etiology and supplement biopsy results. I am glad to present this work through the medium of AMJ journal, who made the submission process very smooth.

AMJ: Imaging tests are an important part of the process of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Would you share with us the novelties in medical imaging?

Dr. Khatri: Technological advancement has drastically revolutionized medical imaging. The addition of artificial intelligence on the ever-improving high resolution screening tomography and low dose CT scan methods, have enabled detection of breast and lung cancer at a very early stage. Highly efficient PET scanners and PET/MR fusion technology has fostered better understanding of cancer physiology, cancer staging and cancer treatment monitoring. Upcoming novel radiotherapies using Lutetium radiotracers to treat higher stage prostate and neuroendocrine tumors, are increasing the quality of life in advance stage cancer patients. Novelties in cancer imaging, would see more breakthrough research in near future and help save and improve many lives.

AMJ: About the program “Transfer Patient Imaging”, you and your team designed a unique peer feedback learning model to address discrepancies encountered with outside overreads. Could you introduce this model and its influence?

Dr. Khatri: Quality improvement in medicine is an important aspect to curtail medical errors and improve patient care. Internal peer review is a common practice at many hospital centers to find medical errors and educate in house physicians. But rarely these systems address mistakes on transfer patients done by outside physicians. Tertiary care centers, routinely receive radiology overread requests on outside imaging done by community radiologists, which sometimes have significant errors potentially affecting patient care. At our hospital, which is the largest level 1 trauma center in the entire northwest US, we designed a program to provide the final copy of our overread report, read by experience subspecialist to the authoring community radiologist, with the aim of learning and improving medical care outside of our hospital boundaries. We also conducted a survey to assess the perception of the program and found that program was well received, and authors wanted this to continue. In future we would like more tertiary centers to conduct similar programs, this will help community physician learn from subspecialist experience of tertiary care centers, overall helping reduce medical errors and improving patient care. This project also received an award at RSNA conference. For those interested to learn more about our model, details can be found in this published article “Transfer Patient Imaging: A Novel Peer Feedback Program Beyond Institutional Boundaries.”

AMJ: What motivated you to go into medicine?

Dr. Khatri: The human body and it’s functioning always fascinated me as a child. Growing up my interest in biology kept advancing. I always felt impressed and moved by the doctors I saw, their dedication to help others and the respect that the profession receives. Additionally, my parent’s support and constant motivation, also helped me sail through the journey of becoming a physician. Presently I am very happy to be in medicine and helping my patients. Couldn’t have been happier.

AMJ: What is your advice to young surgeons?

Dr. Khatri: Motivation: Being a doctor comes with certain responsibilities and sacrifices, and requires constant motivation. I suggest to constantly remind yourself, what brought you to the field, to help you keep going.

Take breaks: Human body is not a machine. To function optimally it requires rest. So please make sure to take timely breaks and vacation, so as to maintain a work life balance.

Growth: Professionally we play 3 roles: clinician, researcher and educator. Patient care is always primary. But one should also expand in other roles to better the field of medicine.

Nainesh Parikh

Dr. Parikh’s clinical interests include treating patients with advanced malignancies utilizing minimally invasive techniques. Specific areas of interest include endovascular and percutaneous approaches for managing cancers of the GU system such as kidney and prostate cancer, in addition to primary and secondary liver cancer. Dr. Parikh earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in New York City and subsequently worked as an investment banker after graduation. After deciding that he wanted to have a significant impact on the daily lives of patients, he obtained MD and MBA degrees from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, MA. He then completed a diagnostic radiology residency at NYU Medical Center in New York City, before moving back to Boston to complete a fellowship in Angiography and Interventional Radiology at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital – Harvard Medical School.

AMJ: We are glad to have your contribution titled with “A narrative review of the role of prostatic artery embolization in the management of post-radiation prostatitis”. Could you highlight the main points of this article?

Dr. Nainesh Parikh: 

1. Post radiation prostatitis represents a subset of the patient population of men suffering from chronic prostatitis
2. While the pathophysiology, and therefore management strategy, are unclear, what is clear is that the failure rate of medical therapy is high (some report it to be as high as 50%).
3. Several prior medications, interventions and surgical techniques have been attempted – but without any demonstrating persistent success.
4. PAE in this patient population has been shown to be effective in the management of post-radiation medically recalcitrant prostatitis. More studies are certainly needed, however it represents a promising therapeutic option for men with this very debilitating disease.

AMJ: The majority of your liver/kidney cancer surgeries are performed using minimally invasive techniques. Could you please tell us about the biggest challenge of using minimally invasive techniques in surgeries? Are there some cases which impress you a lot?

Dr. Nainesh Parikh: 

1. The biggest challenge remains proving to patients and referring providers that these minimally invasive techniques are equally as effective as “surgical” ones
2. I put that term in quotes because we are all doing “surgery”, as the patient might think of it. Whether a surgeon, endoscopist or interventional radiologist – all of these procedures are ones that are done on patients and therefore have the potential to injure/harm patients, otherwise known as complications.
3. Interventional radiologic techniques are no different, however patients and referring physicians alike often times have a hard time likening our minimally invasive techniques to “surgical” ones because people have the understanding that surgical techniques involve “cutting out” tumors. 
4. Some patients, and I fully understand the perspective, just don’t feel that their cancers are adequately treated unless it is quite literally “removed from their body.”
5. In addition to the patient perspective, because our techniques are new and because data isn’t always gathered in a prospective fashion, sufficient clinical evidence is not available to prove that in the long run, the oncologic outcomes are equivalent (or not).

AMJ: Could you tell us the current status of robotic-assisted kidney cancer surgery and its future developments?

Dr. Nainesh Parikh: Given that I am an interventional radiologist, I would defer to my colleague Dr. Spiess who is urologic oncologic surgeon with significant expertise in minimally invasive robotic and laparoscopic approaches to renal surgery

Dr. Philippe E. Spiess (Editor-in-Chief of AMJ): Thanks for including me in this interview. I would definitely emphasize that robotic surgery has had a significant impact in the management of small renal masses most notably where it now constitutes the most frequent surgical approach. Robotic assisted surgery has paved its way in the management of locally advanced renal tumors (select regional nodal metastasis and/or IVC tumor thrombi) but cannot overemphasize the importance this be performed by experienced and skilled robotic/minimally invasive surgeons.

AMJ: Would you share with us your recent research project?

Dr. Nainesh Parikh: 

1. I’m currently working on the role prostate artery embolization (PAE) in the management of patients with moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms from benign prostatic hyperplasia who receive definitive radiotherapy for their concurrent non-obstructive locally confined prostate cancer.
2. Our goal is to demonstrate that in these patients, PAE allows for more efficient radiation with reduced post-radiation toxicity.

AMJ: What makes you do the decision to be a doctor?

1. The ability to impact a patient’s life (as well as that of their loved ones), particularly with respect to such a challenging diagnosis as cancer, is a gift that I believe is incomparable
2. No feeling is better than having a patient say “thank you” and while it is often challenging to deliver bad news, the relationship you can develop with a patient by being their shepherd on their medical journey is one that is emotionally fulfilling, intellectually stimulating, and rewarding.

Apichaya Sripariwuth

Dr. Apichaya Sripariwuth, M.D., is a radiologist and lecturer who works at Naresuan University Hospital (NUH), Phitsanulok, Thailand. In 2017, Dr. Sripariwuth was a research fellow in cardiovascular CT and MRI at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA. Her research focus areas are mainly in medical imaging and the diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases with the aim of assisting physicians improve patient care. Her recent project focuses on how to provide early detection of thoracic aortic disease via chest radiograph, a process which can prevent fatal outcomes of the acute thoracic aortic disease. You may find more about Dr. Sripariwuth’s work in Google Scholar and ResearchGate page.

When asked about what the elements of a good academic paper are, Dr. Sripariwuth says there are several essential elements of it that are able to explain the purpose of the research. Since she believes a research paper is a report of scientific findings, the most important thing of a good academic paper is to provide a path to solving a complex issue. “People who spend time to read the paper should be able to benefit from the data and information that was articulated throughout the paper, such as treatment processes and impacts, or as a catalyst for an idea for a new project,” says Dr. Sripariwuth. There are 4 steps which she suggests authors should adhere to and keep in mind during their attempts to create/write a powerful and meaning academic paper:

1. Start with an opening statement should begin with a mindful, a provocative claim that can be questioned. “Before starting all academic paper (such as research paper, review article, case report), authors should ask themselves what the objective behind this project is,” as Dr. Sripariwuth states, “[w]ith a clear objective in mind, individuals will be able to achieve the best conclusion of their project paper. Equally importantly, the author will be able to show the benefits of performing this paper.”
2. Form a good plan by preparing, outlying their idea into a coherent written arrangement. Dr. Sripariwuth empathizes authors should check as many as possible available resources institute internally and externally. “It is essential that researchers are able to understand the strengths, limitations, opportunities, and threats of their project. As co-authors share a research paper’s ideology, a good plan helps authors to stay focused on individual responsibilities while encompassing the whole concept(s) of the paper,” she says.
3. Perform a research study requires a step-by-step process whereby patience and integrity are essential. Dr. Sripariwuth notes that the academic paper, especially in healthcare field, reflects the scientific outcomes and potential effects directly on the quality of life of individuals. Researcher findings must be reliable with a strong base of evidence.
4. Write the manuscript in a form whereby the idea of the paper is clear and concise. “The writings should provide an easy-to-understand valued messages from an author to a reader,” says Dr. Sripariwuth, “Readers should be able to generally comprehend the paper’s concepts from an abstract and then obtain the details of the papers focus in body of a manuscript. Depending on type of research or article type, beginner should follow the reporting guidelines, such as STARD and CONSORT that are used for standard manuscript writing.”

As academic writing often involves evidence synthesis, Dr. Sripariwuth mentions it is crucial for the methodology must suit the answer the question. “Everyone knows their position and their work. Our reasonability is do our best and let’s result become. Then, we will get an unbiased result,” she says.

For academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress, Dr. Sripariwuth provides the following motto: “Individual should stay focus on the goals of a project. They must ensure that biases are not included in their process.” She also remarks that the results will provide the information that is necessary to draw a conclusion to your research question(s). “If the findings deliver some beneficial insight to an issue, it is good.”, she adds. The creation and the writing of a good academic paper is not easy, yet Dr. Sripariwuth says it is not problem. “It is merely a test of your mental and professional fortitude that allows you to communicate author’s ideas. The reward acquired from for academic writing is not only publishing in a journal, but also that you learn and develop your knowledge and skills while you are in the process of researching during project.”

Regarding the disclosure of authors’ Conflict of Interest (COI), Dr. Sripariwuth says it is important, as she believes it reminds authors about their position and prevent research’s bias and acts as a critical checkpoint of the authors ideas. “It provides validity and reliability of one’s work.  I encourage all authors to disclose COI for any form of research,” she comments.

Keng Hoong Chiam

Dr. Keng Hoong Chiam is a resident consultant gastroenterologist and physician at the Department of Internal Medicine in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. His primary research interest is in gastrointestinal endoscopy, focusing on detecting and treating early gastrointestinal cancers. Currently, his research project looks into optimizing and enhancing the role of image-enhanced endoscopy in reducing the work burden for general pathologists. You may find more about Dr. Chiam’s work in his LinkedIn page.

For Dr. Chiam, an excellent academic paper should summarise the current understanding of a topic and what it aims to build on. The work, he says, should possess all the essential elements that attract the readers' attention and provide a clear conclusion to address the initial research agenda. He also adds that authors should also highlight the limitations encountered and provide strategies for future work to overcome these shortfalls. “Statistical analysis, if used, should be legible and, more importantly, reproducible,” Dr. Chiam notes. “The manuscript must be free from grammatical errors, make sense, and read well.”

As academic writing often involves evidence synthesis, Dr. Chiam recommends starting with a list of questions and reading widely around the topic through literary search engines. This strategy may stimulate critical thinking and help generate more ideas. “Nevertheless, researchers should stick to their original plan and see how they can further contribute to the current understanding,” he says. He also suggests focusing on top-tier journals first and seek to look out for systemic reviews and meta-analyses while working your way down to randomised controlled trials and case studies based on the robustness of the studies. Furthermore, Dr. Chiam remarks that authors should be mindful that two similarly designed studies may have disparate outcomes, so one must delve deeper into their methodologies and provide a critical review to highlight their relevance to the author's work.

Despite his busy schedule as a scientist/doctor, Dr. Chiam always tries to allocate an hour or two during his free days throughout the week to focus on writing. “In between clinics and endoscopy sessions, I would take short breaks to read up on relevant topics I am writing about to gather background knowledge and seek to identify points on what I can improve on the subject,” he reveals, “I value all these sessions and prefer to seek a quiet spot where I can keep my focus to avoid distraction.”

When asked whether it is important to follow reporting guidelines, such as STROBE, CONSORT and CARE, he replies, “Most definitely! I find these guidelines helpful as they provide a questionnaire checklist to help you, as an author, improve the flow and subject matter of your writing It gets you started and enables you to move along with your paper so that you do not get astray. They are, in fact, the very essence of all research papers, as the readers are wont to look for critical points according to the guidelines too.”

Lucas Wiegand

Dr. Lucas Wiegand completed his Doctor of Medicine degree at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.  His Urology residency was also at the University of South Florida through Tampa General Hospital, the James A. Haley VA Hospital, and the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute.  He then went on to complete a fellowship in Reconstructive Urology at Washington University in St. Louis at the Barnes Jewish Hospital. He is board certified in Urology by the American Board of Urology. He is currently the Associate Professor of Urology and Vice Chair of Research in Urologic Surgery at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida.  His clinical and research interests include urethral and ureteral stricture disease, radiation-related urologic dysfunction, neurogenic bladder, incontinence and voiding dysfunction, urologic fistulae, and urologic trauma, specifically applying minimally invasive and robotic surgeries for the correction of these diseases. You may find more about Dr. Wiegand’s work in his faculty page. You may also connect with him through his Twitter @wiegand_luke.

For Dr. Wiegand, there are three main issues with academic writing:

1. Finding time.  Most academicians are also clinicians that have significant clinical obligations.  The writing is done for the love of the science and advancement of the field.  Time is made through sacrifice of other free time, but it is time well-spent.
2. Working with trainees.  It is imperative to show trainees that academic writing is worth the time, but it does require constant training.  That said, the trainees bring a fresh look at important issues and often will help to make creative solutions to problems or make connections that might otherwise be missed.
3. Keeping momentum.  Many good projects are never finished, not because of lack of time, but because of stagnation or lack of momentum.  Keeping projects organized and pushing to finish can be emotionally difficult, even if there is time to complete them!

Furthermore, Dr. Wiegand suggests that modern online search techniques, including open access journals like AMJ, really level the playing field and allow all academic writers to have access to the same information, essentially disseminated immediately. “This is paramount for staying up-to-date on where the field of medicine is moving,” he reveals.

Despite the strenuous and time-consuming nature of academic writing, Dr. Wiegand continues to do so as he mentions that every physician and academician knows that there is room for improvement in all aspects of patient care. “Documenting and reporting outcomes, safe experimentation with reporting of results – positive or negative, and sharing of information are the foundation of the advancement of the field of medicine,” he adds, “Most researchers are thinking what they would want for themselves or their family and improved care is at the top of that list.”

In terms of the application for institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Wiegand remarks that IRB is vital for the protection of patient rights and safety. “Without IRB, patients could be at risk of exploitation or harms, both intentional and unintentional, by academicians,” he says.

Dragan Subotic

Dr. Dragan Subotic is currently affiliated to General Hospital Acibadem/ Bel Medic, Belgrade, Serbia. After his employment in the Clinic for thoracic surgery in Belgrade in 1985, the area of the activity of Dr. Dragan Subotic was general thoracic surgery with the accent to surgery of thoracic malignancies and pleuropulmonary infections. Dr. Subotic was nominated Head of the department of the Clinic for thoracic surgery in Belgrade in 1996 and Director of the clinic in 2013. He was elected Professor at the University of Belgrade school of medicine in 2008. He served as the Assembly head of the Assembly for thoracic surgery and lung transplantation of the European Respiratory Society (ERS, 2013-2016). In the period 2008-2011, Dr. Subotic was a member of the Thoracic Domain of the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (EACTS). In the period 2017-2019, Dr. Subotic was employed as a surgeon in the Clinic for Thoracic Surgery in the University Hospital Basel and during 2021 in the Clinic for Thoracic Surgery in the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.

AMJ: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?

Dr. Subotic: In addition to the clear study design and appropriate methodology, the appropriate data analysis is a key element of a good academic paper. Here the role of statistician is of utmost importance. If potential selection bias is recognized and reported for original research, together with frequent limitations like data imprecision or inconsistency for review articles, the paper has more chance to reach a good quality, independently of the actuality of the selected topic. Not all good papers deal with really hot topics, but may represent a useful contribution for practice.

AMJ: How to ensure one’s writing is critical?

Dr. Subotic: In my opinion, in order to meet this requirement, the original paper should meet two important criteria: firstly, the topic should be of major practical interest and with some unclear aspects; secondly, at least one question should be clearly answered with a minimum chances to bring additional confusion in already unclear research field. Not only prospective studies may be of critical importance. Retrospective studies may represent critical writing as well, but in that case, methodology must be optimally set up. Concerning review articles, as a practicing clinician, I find systematic reviews as advantageous vs. non-systematic ones, no matter whether they are designed to issue consensus statements or clinical practice guidelines.

AMJ: Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Subotic: All the practitioners in the university institutions are to some extent obliged to academic writing, which is included in the job description. Academic writing outside that frame depends not only on personal motivation, but on the availability of sufficient clinical material and technical tools for the analysis as well. There are for sure many highly motivated authors whose potential contribution is limited by the aforementioned and many other non-medical factors. After many years, one becomes aware of the significance of this extra engagement in the same way the efforts of other authors once helped him in his own practice.

AMJ: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?

Dr. Subotic: It is clear that the existence of COI may significantly influence study design or study endpoints, especially in basic research. It is particularly important in certain fields where basic research closely interacts with clinical medicine, like in medical oncology. The effects of one kind of treatment may seem to be better than another one, but only if surogate- survival, like disease-free survival, was analyzed instead of the overall survival, because of the short real survival benefit. I have nothing against such studies, they may also be useful in some aspects, but the COI must be clearly declared. With the widespread use of novel (and sometimes very expensive) minimally invasive devices in surgical subspecialties, favoring of one technology over another one requires COI reporting as well.

Takayuki Kosaka

Dr. Takayuki Kosaka is a thoracic surgeon at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Hospital Organization Takasaki General Medical Center, Japan. His current clinical research is focused on minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy. As a surgeon, he constantly tries to validate new and better thoracoscopic approaches. He is also interested in the treatment and diagnosis of mediastinal tumors. His research interest is translational research, especially of EGFR and EGFR-TKIs.

When asked about the importance of academic writing, Dr. Kosaka mentions that when we treat a rare case or obtain valuable research results, it is important to share it with others. Through academic writing, those cases and findings can be evaluated by others and hopefully become part of the knowledge for the next generation. He adds, “Without such valuable papers, there can be no progress in medicine. I am a surgeon, and in my daily practice, I encounter rare cases for which there is only little evidence. Reporting and accumulating knowledge from these cases will lead to the elucidation of pathological conditions and the development of new treatments. For a surgeon, the spirit of academic inquiry is as important as brushing surgical techniques.”

In terms of what authors have to bear in mind when writing a paper, Dr. Kosaka points out that they have to be clear about what they want to emphasize. “Sometime, people want to present all the analysis they have done, but if we pack in too much information, the main point could become unclear,” he says, “If the message is concise and clear, readers will be able to understand its value. The most important thing is how to summarize the information in a concise and easy-to-understand manner.”

For other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress, Dr. Kosaka reminds them that they should always keep in mind why they are writing the paper. He states, “If we can envision that our paper will contribute to the development of our field and to the people of the world, it will be a truly rewarding job.”

In addition, Dr. Kosaka believes it is important to follow reporting guidelines, such as STROBE and CONSORT during the preparation of manuscripts. “We should follow a format and write in prose,” he remarks, “Otherwise, it would be very difficult for the reader to read. If we write in a fixed form, the reader will find it very easy to understand.”

Guglielmo Mantica

Dr. Guglielmo Mantica is a consultant urologist at IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. During 2017-2018, he attended a fellowship at Tygerberg Hospital – Stellenbosch University (Cape Town, South Africa) where he could increase his skills and knowledge in trauma surgery, endourology and reconstructive surgery with special focus on penile transplantation. From 2018 to 2019. he had been a consultant at San Raffaele Turro Hospital (Milan, Italy), where he could start his training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery working with worldwide pioneers of these fields. Dr. Mantica has also been an associate panelist for the EAU (European Association of Urology) Guidelines on Urological Infections since 2020 and Full member of the EAU YAU (Young Academic Urologists) Reconstructive Urology Group since 2021. In 2022, he became associate member of the EAU Section of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (ESGURS). He is currently a committee member of IAMSurgery (International Academy of Minimally Invasive Surgery – Malta), SIU (Italian Society of Urology), IEA (Italian Endourological Society). He is author of more than 120 peer-reviewed articles in international journals and 7 book chapters. He is a reviewer/editor for more than 40 urological and surgical journals. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery, endourology and reconstructive/andrological surgery are his main interests. You may connect with Dr. Mantica through Twitter @ManticaGu.

Dr. Mantica believes that academic writing is essential for the comparison between different specialists, in order to improve their techniques and knowledge to increase their skills but above all for the good of patients. In addition, academic writing is also essential to be able to increase one's profile.

In terms of what authors have to bear in mind during preparation of a paper, Dr. Mantica lists the following: The objective of the study, the transparency and clarity with which to present the results.

When asked about the reason he chooses to publish his work in AME Medical Journal, Dr. Mantica replies, “AME group is a guarantee of seriousness with several indexed journals, fast and high-quality peer reviews and high quality of publication. AME Medical Journal is a brand new and very promising journal.”

Furthermore, Dr. Mantica thinks that it is important to follow guidelines, such as STROBE and CARE, and such action has become mandatory to ensure standardization of studies and raise the quality of publications. In fact, he and his team have introduced a further guideline (the CACTUS guidelines) which aims at the standardization of how the characteristics of the cadaver models used for training studies and scientific studies are reported.

Giorgio Lo Iacono

Giorgio Lo Iacono, MD, is a thoracic surgeon at IEO European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. During the training period, he attended several high-volume hospitals both in his native land and abroad such as the Hopital Cochin in Paris, France and the ISMETT-UPMC in Palermo, Italy, together with some complementary experiences in other states, and finally at the IEO in Milan, where he then settled after obtaining the qualification of thoracic surgeon. Although he has studied all aspects of thoracic surgery, he has always shown a deep interest in oncological surgery, for which he has also obtained a university master's degree. He has constantly carried out both minimally invasive surgery, today also as robotic surgery, but without neglecting the teachings of his teachers who created the history of thoracic surgery in the field of major surgery. He actively attends the events of the main scientific societies for sharing results and innovations in light of the motto "Think globally, act locally!" Connect with Dr. Lo Iacono on Linkedln or Twitter.

When being asked of the key skill sets for being an academic writer, Dr. Lo Iacono thinks one has to be scientifically prepared. The study and analysis of scientific literature, together with the love for research are essential. At the same time, it is important to be patient and also resilient. Today, publishing scientific articles is increasingly difficult and finding innovative and interesting topics for the scientific community is very stressful, to the point that many have given up. He thinks while it takes some aptitude, anyone can do research projects as long as one is truly devoted to science. He further elaborates, “Scientific activity requires rigorous and clear processes. No step should be underestimated or skipped to run towards results. Only a careful analysis of the entire research project process, from conception to sharing of results, will lead to quality research.”

Speaking of the need for applying the institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Lo Iacono emphasizes that high-quality research is very important and some steps are needed to raise the level of the work and its results. Research in the medical field is carried out on patients and that is why the privacy and medical ethics of a scientific work must be submitted to an independent committee to guarantee the highest standards of safety and respect for patients and for all the elements involved in scientific research.

Finally, Dr. Lo Iacono encourages peers to have patience, dedication and not stopping at the first refusals. He believes with passion and constancy, the results will come.