In 2023, 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 (2023)
Erin L. Schenk, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, USA
Wade T. Iams, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA
Rafael Rosell, Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute and Hospital, Spain
Jessica C. Sieren, University of Iowa, USA
Arik Bernard Schulze, University Hospital Muenster, Germany
Ju-Yoon Yoon, Unity Health Toronto, Canada
Terry L. Ng, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Canada
Stephen L. Brown, Henry Ford Health, USA
Barbara Melosky, University of British Columbia, Canada
Doran Ksienski, University of British Columbia, Canada
Andrzej Swierniak, Silesian University of Technology, Poland
Ezgi B. Ulas, Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands
Takaaki Sasaki, Asahikawa Medical University, Japan
Petros Christopoulos, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
Yago Garitaonaindia, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Spain
Andreas Pircher, Medical University Innsbruck (MUI), Austria
Toyoaki Hida, Central Japan International Medical Center, Japan
Su Bin Lim, Ajou University, Korea
Bernard A. M. Van der Zeijst, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands
Janakiraman Subramanian, Inova Schar Cancer Institute, USA
Ivy Riano, Medicine Dartmouth College, USA
Charley Jang, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, USA
Laura Soucek, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Spain
Margrethe Bang Henriksen, Vejle University Hospital, Denmark
Toshiyuki Nakai, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan
Erin L. Schenk
Dr. Erin Schenk is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, USA. She received her MD and PhD from the Mayo Clinic Medical Scientist Training Program in Rochester, Minnesota. She completed her internal medicine residency and fellowship at Mayo Clinic with a continued focus in tumor immunology through the Clinician-Investigator Training Program. Dr. Schenk has an active clinical practice focused on patients with lung cancer and leads multiple clinical trials investigating novel immunotherapy approaches for patients with lung cancer. The Schenk Lab is part of the Thoracic Oncology Research Initiative at the University of Colorado and investigates the lung cancer tumor microenvironment as a contributor to lung cancer progression and treatment resistance. The Schenk laboratory receives support from the NIH, LUNGevity, the Cancer League of Colorado, and the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Learn more about Dr. Schenk here.
Academic writing, in Dr. Schenk’s view, is a crucial communication tool for the scientific community. Authors need to clearly and concisely present their data, acknowledge limitations, place their conclusions within the context of current knowledge, and consider how their data can address the unknowns in their respective fields.
According to Dr. Schenk, ensuring a well-balanced publication first requires identification the major topics that need to be covered to orient the reader to what is known and unknown in the field. Reflecting on the presented data or studies that will be covered can often help identify these themes. Next is critical consideration of the data. What is central conclusion of the work? Can a clear connection be made between data that supports the central conclusions in a logical manner? Finally, a deep understanding of the relevant literature can help shape the discussion of the data. How do the presented findings fit with others’ work? Considering alternative explanations and the limitations of the data shows a depth intellectual engagement and respect for potential counterarguments.
Speaking of the need for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Schenk points out that patients entrust their sensitive data and specimens to those engaged in translational research in the hopes that findings can help improve the health of future patients, thus IRB review and approval is an essential process that ensures adherence to relevant regulations, research participant protection, and enhances the rigor of proposed research. Without an IRB process, those protections would be lost and potentially undermine the trust and confidence patients and the general public place in physicians and scientists engaged in translational research.
“Writing is often the capstone of years of effort by members of my laboratory and patient participation in research. Writing and publishing what was found honors that work and the trust placed in us by patients to obtain and share all insights possible from their data,” says Dr. Schenk.
(By Brad Li, Eunice X. Xu)
Wade T. Iams
Wade Iams, MD, MSCI, is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA. He is the Director of Thoracic Clinical Trials. His primary research interests are thoracic clinical trial leadership and novel blood biomarker analysis in patients with lung cancer. His goal is to keep Vanderbilt at the leading edge of the field of blood biomarker development and clinical applications. Dr. Iams earned his medical degree at the University of Michigan, and did an Internal Medicine residency at VUMC, where he served as Chief Resident. He completed his fellowship training in Clinical Oncology at McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University prior to returning to Vanderbilt as faculty in 2018. Follow Dr. Iams on Twitter @WadeIams.
The primary difficulty in academic writing, in Dr. Iams’ view, is securing time to devote to the writing process. With competing demands of patient care, education, and administration, it is often difficult to allocate the time required for refining academic writing and output. Ensuring that one’s writing is up-to-date is also a challenge; in each field, there are typically a few journals that are very nearly required reading. In thoracic oncology, he considers Journal of Thoracic Oncology required reading, and it also has a “journal watch” feature where seminal articles in any journal from all of thoracic oncology are summarized in each issue. This makes it a bit more feasible to keep up with the thoracic oncology literature, in addition to conference attendance and conversations with colleagues, which are always enlightening and key.
On the other hand, Dr. Iams indicates that research data sharing is ultimately best for patients and science. It allows us to not excessively replicate efforts that others have done, and it allows the field to proceed most efficiently. This progress is ultimately most beneficial to patients.
“A clear strategy to protect time for writing and research project is critical. I think each individual needs to work out their week to week routine, and budget in time for advancing academic research. The specific allocation of these efforts will vary by individual, but having a routine and sticking with the plan are key elements in being productive,” says Dr. Iams.
(Brad Li is the main author; Yi Tang, an intern of AME, helped proofread this interview)
Rafael Rosell
Dr. Rafael Rosell is Head of the Molecular and Cellular Oncology Laboratory program at the Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute and Hospital (IGTP), Campus Can Ruti, (Badalona, Barcelona, Spain), past Director of the Cancer Biology and Precision Medicine Program at the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol (Badalona), Chief Scientific Officer, Chairman and Founder of Pangaea Oncology SL (Barcelona), Chief Medical Officer and President of the Dr Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Quirón Dexeus, General de Catalunya & Sagrat Cor Univ. Hospitals (Barcelona), and Founder and President of the Molecular Oncology Research Foundation (Barcelona). He is Founder and Director of International Relations and Projects, Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG), member of the Foundation Council and Steering Committee of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) and on the Foundation Board of the ETOP- International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). He is also a Panel member of the ASCO Clinical Practice Living Guidelines- Systemic Therapy for Stage IV NSCLC. Dr. Rosell’s contributions to translational medical oncology, with particular emphasis in the field of non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations, have earned him international renown. Learn more about Dr. Rosell here, and follow him on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
In Dr. Rosell’s opinion, scientific writing is quintessential in the training of either a medical oncologist, a cancer biologist, or other specialists. The writing process epitomizes the virtues of a researcher as well as a medical doctor. To him, an author must have an avid interest in research and in reading the overflow of articles that, nowadays, are published daily in numerous journals. The reading of this scientific literature can help create the necessary stamina and inspiration for writing.
In addition, Dr. Rosell considers that reporting Conflicts of Interest (COI) is well deserved to assure that there are no biases in the article and, above all, in the interpretation of the data. However, in cancer biology, he believes COI is not the relevant issue. Authors that have already made pertinent discoveries could have patents that are normally declared in the manuscript, as well as the transfer of research findings to pharmaceutical or other entities.
“Writing is a complex process with numerous hurdles. It requires great perseverance, sacrifice and deep research. Academic writing is particularly rewarding when writing original articles,” says Dr. Rosell.
(By Brad Li, Eunice X. Xu)
Jessica C. Sieren
Jessica C. Sieren, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Iowa, IA, USA. She is also the Associate Director of the Advanced Pulmonary Physiomic Imaging Laboratory and Co-Director of the Radiology Core Lab. Her research is directed towards advancing medical imaging acquisition and analysis techniques to improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment monitoring for lung cancer and other pulmonary diseases. One current research focus is on exploring the potential of radiomic biomarkers and machine learning for predicting diagnostic and clinical outcomes for patients with computed tomography (CT) detected pulmonary lesions. Another key research focus is on the optimization of CT acquisition for quantitative analysis of lung structure, including understanding the impact of sex dependent biological variability. Learn more about Dr. Sieren here and ResearchGate, and connect with her on LinkedIn.
To Dr. Sieren, one of the biggest challenges in academic writing is effectively and concisely highlighting the findings, contribution and limitations of the reported study within the context of the existing literature. She also shares two approaches that she has used to allocate time for writing, “The first is using time-blocking to set aside some protected windows of time for writing on my calendar. The second is to recognize and leverage the ebbs and flows in my writing efficiency, adjusting the number and duration of the time blocks week to week.”
According to Dr. Sieren, there are a few qualities that an author should possess. First, an author needs to be innovative, such that the aim and the methodology of the paper contribute new and valuable information. Second, being ethical is vital to designing and conducting a rigorous and unbiased study with accurate reporting and a clear presentation of limitations. Third, curiosity is needed to provide the motivation to conduct the research, seek input from others, and fully explore how new research directions are related to the work of others. Finally, but equally as essential, is perseverance to see the work through from inception to publication.
Speaking of the importance of Conflicts of Interest (COI) disclosure, Dr. Sieren points out that commercial, personal, or financial interests have the potential to impact a researcher’s objectivity in the conduct of their work. It is vital for authors to disclose COI in the reporting of their research to inform readers of possible biases. Author transparency is necessary to support reader’s trust in the scientific process.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Arik Bernard Schulze
PD Dr. Arik Bernard Schulze is a university lecturer for Internal Medicine at the University of Münster, Germany. He is a board-certified oncologist and works at the section of pulmonary medicine in the Medical Department A for hematology, oncology, hemostaseology and pulmonary medicine at the University Hospital of Münster, Germany. Next to clinical investigations, his current research focuses on identification and evaluation of lung cancer biomarkers and peritumoral environment, with special focus on protein- and gene-expression and regulation. You may connect with Dr. Schulze on LinkedIn .
In terms of the role academic writing plays in science, Dr. Schulze thinks that it aims to include current research data into state-of-the-art knowledge by outlining detected implications, limitations, and possible biases of the research. It should state the necessity to study the presented field, depict pre-determined hypotheses and confirm or deny the assumptions made. Academic writing may elaborate on future research perspectives but must differ correlations and associations from assumptions and possibilities. Hence, the methods section needs a precise map of what and how to evaluate. The discussion finally includes the significant results into the scientific field and develops an interpretation of the presented data.
Dr. Schulze deems that every research bears risk of biases. In order to avoid biases in writing, it is fundamental to self-critically be aware of these and outline possible biases in scientific manuscripts. Avoidance of such by prospective, randomized trials is a noble but demanding goal. Still, retrospective studies may be used to advance research into new directions prior to large prospective, randomized trials. In a retrospective setting, two or more independent databases as well as different experimental approaches towards consistent results may promote data validity and reduce the risk of biases.
Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. Speaking of the motivation to do academic writing, Dr. Schulze states that presentation of the analyzed data to the scientific community is an integral part of performing research. After completion of the experimental procedures, academic writing helps to thoroughly reflect the gained information and elaborate on a comprehensible presentation. By processing the data and discussing the state of knowledge, future experiments and research paths are unveiled. And finally, every author takes pride in a well-written and recognized manuscript that has an informative value for the scientific community.
From an author’s perspective, Dr. Schulze believes that reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, PRISMA and CARE) help to ensure an integrated research approach in line with ethical standards. They promote standardization for publication of research and can also be seen as a quality management tool for the scientific community, especially for journals, researchers, reviewers, and readers.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Ju-Yoon Yoon
Dr. Ju-Yoon Yoon serves as a molecular and surgical pathologist at Unity Health Toronto, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which spans St. Michael’s Hospital, St. Joseph’s Health Centre, and Providence Healthcare. His main research focus is translational research, focusing on the gap between basic (bench) and clinical realms. His publication in TLCR is an example of this endeavour, where he and his fellows studied the clinical significance of homologous recombination pathway gene variants, identified through somatic sequencing in patients with lung cancer.
On the importance of academic writing, Dr. Yoon deems that the needs arise from the numerous chasms in knowledge, especially the gap between basic and translational research, i.e., the “valley of death”. Over the last few decades, there have been explosions of knowledge that have not yet carried over to the clinical side. He adds, “We need academic writing focusing on translational studies to filter for clinically relevant and clinically significant bits of knowledge, allowing us to apply the knowledge to improve the clinical management of patients.”
Speaking of how to ensure one’s writing keeps up with the rapid pace of change in the field of research, Dr. Yoon thinks this is becoming more difficult these days, especially with archives like bioRxiv.org, to the extent that he is uncertain if any writing can truly be up-to-date. “Robust web crawling search engines help, and using multiple search engines help. Perhaps this is an area where machine learning can be of aid in the future,” says he.
Seeing the prevalence of data sharing in scientific writing in recent years, Dr. Yoon points out that large repositories like TCGA have transformed the field of genomics. However, the organization of such large-group endeavours is an extremely costly and slow process. Meta-analysis of aggregated data from multiple studies with publicly available data represents an alternative approach. The weakness of such an approach is the lack of central, “homogenizing” processes, such as centralized pathology reviews. Increased transparency in the form of more detailed databases aids in offsetting this marked heterogeneity, at least partly. However, this is potentially accompanied by an increased risk of patient privacy breach and must be approached with caution.
Finally, Dr. Yoon says a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress, “Science matters. Heterogeneity of the real-world data often exceeds that present in the literature, and thus even every case report and small case series studies can aid in managing patients. Some of such studies may never be cited, but, out there somewhere, that report may be having a true impact on a patient.”
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Terry L. Ng
Dr. Terry L. Ng, MD, FRCPC, is a medical oncologist at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, with an appointment of Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa and Clinician Investigator at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. He has published on a broad spectrum of topics focused on supportive and palliative cancer care, molecular targeted therapies, immunotherapy, but more recently has transitioned his research to focus on the role of the gut microbiome in cancer therapy. Connect with Dr. Ng on Twitter @Ng_Terry_L.
TLCR: What do you regard as a good academic paper?
Dr. Ng: From a clinician researcher’s perspective, a good academic paper should present a clear rationale and purpose for the paper/project, outlining the appropriate objectives. The methods or approach to answer the objectives should be reproducible and credible to other members in the field. Importantly, the study design and analysis plan should be systematic and based on the original hypothesis. Analysis of the data should not deviate from the order of the original analysis plan in most cases (i.e., avoiding fishing expeditions) unless novel observations were noted during the study that truly warrant a study protocol amendment. Importantly, conclusions of the paper should be based on the presented data rather than subject to personal agendas or biases. Finally, a good academic paper should always anticipate and acknowledge the limitations of the study and explain whether those caveats could have been anticipated when the study was designed.
TLCR: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Dr. Ng: Evidence synthesis is an accepted method to amalgamate and summarize the literature in either a qualitative or quantitative fashion. The most common types of evidence syntheses include systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews are a general term referring to a systematic approach to doing a literature review that adheres to best practice guidelines like the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. For example, a systematic review of prospective intervention trials should select studies based on a pre-specified set of eligibility criteria, usually organized by population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO). Best practice would dictate that the authors publish their protocol on publicly registered systematic review database like PROSPERO once the protocol has been finalized. This ensures adherence to the planned study protocol and promotes transparency and accountability during the systematic review. Systematic reviews differ from a “literature review” because of the need to conduct a risk of bias assessment of the included studies. This gives the reader a more robust interpretation of the overall data based on the quality of each study. Systematic reviews serve the purpose of systematically assessing the available evidence on a specific topic in the field to identify gaps in the evidence base to identify unanswered scientific questions. Systematic reviews are often a sought-after piece of the puzzle to build a strong application for larger grants for clinical trials.
In the context where multiple studies of one or more interventions have been completed and have sufficient data for comparison of study outcomes, meta-analyses can provide a quantitative estimate of the effect size of the intervention(s) on the outcome(s) of interest. For example, multiple randomized studies on the effect of a new drug on survival outcomes could have been tested over time. A meta-analytic approach could provide a summary estimate of the magnitude of benefit of the new drug by leveraging the power of the combined sample size of the eligible studies. Caveats of meta-analyses often include heterogeneity in patient characteristics, study design, and outcome reporting. Therefore, it is only feasible to conduct meta-analyses on topics where the population, intervention, study design and clinical outcomes are sufficiently comparable across studies.
TLCR: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Ng: All research activities should go through IRB approval prior to proceeding with any research activity. The level of scrutiny in an IRB review depends on the type of research. A retrospective chart review where clinical data are being abstracted from patient charts needs to ensure that patient confidentiality is protected, and only anonymized data collection is preferable unless there are special reasons to collect potentially identifiable clinical information. More care is required when embarking on research that involves direct interaction with human participants, especially if participants are undergoing an experimental intervention or biospecimen samples are being collected. Properly conducted and documented informed consent is essential. Among other reasons, the IRB exists to ensure that patient safety, confidentiality, and informed consent are being held at the highest standard for patients participating in clinical research voluntarily.
TLCR: What is fascinating about academic writing?
Dr. Ng: Within the parameters of adhering to the best practices for authoring a scientific paper, academic writing provides a lot of room for creativity in the way ideas are presented. There is great satisfaction in trying to explain ideas on paper without sounding superfluous. Papers with stricter word limits often lead to a superior product because you end up having to be more critical and thoughtful.
(by Brad Li, Camellia Zhou)
Stephen L. Brown
Stephen L. Brown, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist and Physicist at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, USA. He is the Director of the Radiation Biology Research Laboratory in the Department of Radiation Oncology. He is a Research Professor in the Department of Radiology at Michigan State University School of Medicine, USA and a Professor of Radiation Oncology at Wayne State University, USA. He co-leads the Translational Oncology Group at Henry Ford Health Cancer, a group of 70 laboratory and clinical scientists. His research spans pre-clinical to clinical trials, focusing on strategies to improve the effectiveness of radiation therapy including anti-cancer approaches utilizing biology (a novel gene therapy approach), chemistry (pharmacological agents especially those that improve blood flow to tumors) and physics (hyperthermia) and protection of normal tissue from the damaging effects of radiation.
Regarding the essential elements of an academic paper, Dr. Brown thinks a good academic paper finds the balance between focusing on a single message and providing a comprehensive evaluation of the factors affecting that message. “I have always been of the opinion that sharing one’s ideas openhandedly benefits science compared to the risk of being ‘scooped’,” says Dr. Brown.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Barbara Melosky
Dr. Barbara Melosky, MD, FRCP(C), is a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada and a medical oncologist at the BC Cancer Center in Vancouver. She specializes in thoracic malignancies. She is Chair of the Lung Tumour Group for British Columbia. She sits on the Executive Lung Site Committee for Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CTTG). She chairs the annual Canadian Lung Cancer Conference, attended by over 450 participants, for the last 22 years. She is proud to have started and built the British Columbia Lung Cancer Biobank which is actively used for research for all interested. She has published extensively and is considered a national and international expert in thoracic malignancies.
The most commonly encountered difficulty in academic writing, in Dr. Melosky’ s opinion, is time allowance. For her, the fascination of academic writing lays on personal opinion and thoughts, and trying to be unbiased. Additionally, she thinks it is important to follow reporting guidelines like CONSORT during preparation of manuscripts, but sometimes the best editorials are written with free thought.
Speaking of what authors have to bear in mind during preparation of a paper, Dr. Melosky says, “You just have to start writing. You can improve it after many takes. Send it to a friend who is not an oncologist so she or he can give a take on the language.”
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Doran Ksienski
Dr. Doran Ksienski, MD, MPH, FRCPC, has been a Medical Oncologist at BC Cancer- Victoria in British Columbia, Canada since 2010. He is Director of Clinical Trials and Medical Education and has attained rank of Clinical Associate Professor from the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. He is a member of the UBC Research Ethics Board. He completed medical school at the University of Alberta, Canada and Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology residencies at UBC. He subsequently undertook a Master of Public Health from the University of Victoria, Canada. He has published extensively regarding the safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in lung cancer and melanoma. In particular, he focuses on populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials such as patients ≥75 years of age, those with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and significant comorbidities. His publications can be found on ResearchGate.
Speaking of the difficulties in academic writing, Dr. Ksienski points out that given the tremendous innovations in cancer care that have taken place over the past few years, there is a seemingly endless possibility of project ideas. A key aspect of academic writing is to focus on a few practical questions that are clinically relevant. In particular, he thinks it is more meaningful for a paper to have a deeper focus on a few endpoints than to broadly cover many.
“Ultimately, I feel an author must identify knowledge gaps that are present in the literature and seek to clarify these,” says Dr. Ksienski when he is asked about the qualities an author should possess, “For instance, in Canada, we are fortunate to have public healthcare so many patients have access to medications yet, due to comorbidities or poor ECOG performance status, would not have qualified for the registration trials. Real world studies are able to help clarify the safety and efficacy of anti-cancer therapies in these patient populations.”
Speaking of the motivations to do academic writing, Dr. Ksienski shares that one of the most enjoyable aspects of academic writing is the opportunity to work in a multidisciplinary team. He feels it is fortunate for him to collaborate with pathologists, radiation oncologists, and statisticians on all of his projects. By working as part of a team, they are able to critically examine data from different perspectives. Furthermore, he finds medical education to be very meaningful and has enjoyed mentoring new Medical Oncologists as they write papers.
In Dr. Ksienski’s opinion, reporting guidelines like STROBE and CONSORT provide a common understanding of the information that is required in a manuscript. He explains, “Given that the research community includes groups from many different parts of the world, a framework for scientific writing is essential. Ultimately by following these guidelines, the quality of research produced is higher.”
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Andrzej Swierniak
Andrzej Swierniak completed his PhD in Control Engineering in 1978 from Silesian University of Technology (SUT), Poland and DSc (habilitation) in 1988. He was the Head of the Institute of Automation of SUT, and now is a distinguished professor at the Department of Systems Biology and Engineering. He has published more than 400 papers in journals and book chapters. He is a Fellow of AMS, a Senior Member of IEEE and Editor-in-Chief of Archives of Control Sciences. He was a visiting professor at the University of Mississippi, USA and l’Universite de Montreal, Canada, and a visiting scholar at the Oxford University (UK), Rice University, Houston TX, USA and Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. He was an advisor for 12 doctorate students and about 50 MSc students. Dr. Swierniak served as PI in 8 domestic projects, and 4 international projects related to application of system engineering tools, modeling and optimization of cancer diagnostics and therapy. Learn more about Dr. Swierniak here.
In Dr. Swierniak’s opinion, the most essential element of a good academic paper is to clearly state the primary goal of presented research and to describe step-by-step how it has been realized. On the other hand, it is important to indicate limitations of the approach used in the study and results reported in the paper. Authors in preface must clearly describe the main motivation for their study, present the originality of their approach, and the main “leit motiv”. And last but not least, the title of a paper should be informative enough to attract attention of the intended readers.
To Dr. Swierniak, authors have to bear in mind to whom their paper is addressed during preparation of a paper. Technical level of presentation should be appropriate for the target audience. Writing style and general presentation should be clear and accessible to the intended readers. He emphasizes, “Academic writing is like performing on stage. You should do your best to attract the audience but you are never sure if the way you think is clear for intended readers. Sometimes crucial results presented in papers remain unnoticed and minor contributing discoveries are cited by many researchers. So it is important to present all the results obtained by authors in their study not only those which they think are groundbreaking.”
Seeing the prevalence of data sharing in scientific writing in recent years, Dr. Swierniak deems that data sharing is crucial for academic writing. Sharing research data allows testing results by others without repeating experiments. Moreover, other researchers are able to use shared data for analyses in different contexts. He hopes that sharing research data is crucial for development of new ideas without reinventing the wheel.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Ezgi B. Ulas
Ezgi B. Ulas is a MD/PhD candidate at the department of Pulmonary Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She completed her bachelor’s degree in Medicine in July 2021 and is currently pursuing her master’s degree in Medicine. Next to her bustling life as a medical intern, she is obtaining a PhD on the topic of sensitivity and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in (locally) advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Her research lies within the area of biomarkers that can determine the tumor’s probability to respond to immunotherapy, in the initial first line and after progression in a second line of therapy. She also investigates the role of tumor-draining lymph nodes in locally advanced patients when immunotherapy is administered in a neoadjuvant setting. Learn more about her research through her ResearchGate, Amsterdam UMC-Research and LinkedIn.
TLCR: What do you regard as a good academic paper?
Dr. Ulas: A good academic paper answers a (clinically) relevant and important research question that is part of an ongoing debate within a specific research area. It should present novel insights and clear conclusions with specific recommendations for the future. The manuscript should have been peer-reviewed before to filter out any flaws and maintain a high quality. I think it is also very important to use clear and strong vocabulary in your article to make sure the reader keeps reading through the article. Suitable and understandable use of language really is a crucial part of the road to publish a good academic paper.
TLCR: Science advances rapidly day by day. How do you ensure your writing is up-to-date and can give new insights to the field of research?
Dr. Ulas: In order to ensure I keep up with all novel science advances, I visit dedicated congresses and also submit abstracts from my own research. This way, I am able to get in contact with researchers from all over the world that can help me to further progress with my research by their thoughts and perspectives. Besides, most meetings such as the ESMO, IASLC and ASCO publish newspapers via emails that are very valuable to keep up with updates from many clinical studies worldwide. I also find it helpful to schedule research meetings with my team, to not only share our own research data with each other but also exchange any new insights from our topics of interest.
TLCR: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?
Dr. Ulas: Conducting research and writing articles isn’t always easy and requires a lot of devotion and effort. I believe it is important to make sure your research is within your own scope of interests. This really helps to keep yourself motivated and energized. I also find it useful to stay in contact with my supervisors and colleagues as much as possible during busy times. They can help to overcome any hurdles by giving advice from their own perspectives.
TLCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?
Dr. Ulas: I do believe it is extremely important for authors to disclose COI, which can influence many aspects of research: from research designs to data acquisition and manuscript writing. It is best to stay honest and clear about your conflicts and make sure no misunderstandings arise.
(by Brad Li, Camellia Zhou)
Takaaki Sasaki
Takaaki Sasaki is a distinguished medical professional affiliated with the Internal Medicine Department, Respiratory Medicine and Neurology at Asahikawa Medical University. He earned his M.D. from Asahikawa Medical College in 2001 and later achieved his Ph.D. from the same institution in 2008. Over the years, he has held various positions, including a research fellowship at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA, USA, and has progressively climbed the ranks at Asahikawa Medical University Hospital, currently serving as an Associate Professor/Lecturer. His research primarily revolves around lung cancer, with a focus on oncogene activation and resistance mechanisms to ALK inhibitors. Dr. Sasaki has an impressive publication record, with over 40 peer-reviewed papers, and has been the principal investigator for multiple research grants. He is an active member of several international and Japanese medical societies, including the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Japanese Society of Respiratory Medicine.
In Dr. Sasaki’s view, originality is paramount in academic research. It ensures that the study offers fresh knowledge, insights, and perspectives to the field. Thoroughly reviewing the existing literature in one's research domain is essential. By doing this, he indicates that a researcher can pinpoint gaps and uncharted territories, guaranteeing that their work is not just repetitive but a genuine contribution. To him, it is vital to elucidate how the originality of the research can propel the field forward and present innovative solutions to prevailing challenges.
To avoid biases in writing, Dr. Sasaki points out that it is essential to accurately represent research data and maintain an objective stance that facilitates the evaluation of potential biases. Embracing a receptive attitude towards criticism from peers is crucial. Researchers often have a propensity to choose data that conveniently align with their hypotheses.
As mentioned, ensuring objectivity is paramount. Dr. Sasaki believes it is also crucial for authors to share their research data because it allows others to reproduce the same experiments, reinforcing the validity and reliability of the findings. However, he reiterates that it is essential to exercise utmost caution when handling patient's personal information.
“Writing academic papers requires a great deal of time and effort, but my motivation stems from my role as a clinician. Ultimately, my goal is to save countless lives or improve the quality of people's lives through research. Before reaching that ultimate goal, I can strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and gain public trust by elucidating pathologies and deepening knowledge in my field of expertise. It is important to remain dedicated to achieving that ultimate goal,” says Dr. Sasaki.
(by Brad Li, Camellia Zhou)
Petros Christopoulos
Petros Christopoulos is Professor of Medicine at Heidelberg University, Germany, Hematologist & Medical Oncologist in the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Head of Scientific Coordination for the Thoracic Oncology Program in the Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, and Principal Investigator in the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). He is responsible for several clinical and translational studies, as well as for the weekly thoracic molecular tumor board and subsequent use of novel compounds off-label or within expanded access programs. After studying medicine in the University of Athens, Greece, he completed his training in Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Hematology, Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Medical Oncology, Genetic Counseling, and Palliative Care in the University Hospitals of Freiburg and Würzburg in Germany. His research integrates clinical with genetic, pathologic, immunologic, and radiologic data to refine patient stratification, improve disease monitoring and identify novel therapeutic targets, which are subsequently translated into advanced preclinical models and investigator-initiated trials. Here are two platforms where you can find out more information about Prof. Christopoulos: Universität Heidelberg and Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg.
A good academic paper, according to Prof. Christopoulos, should address a timely topic and answer important-for-the-community questions in a definitive way, which makes it an important link in the chain of new knowledge. In terms of the key skill sets of an author, from his point of view, a good author is both a good researcher generating valuable knowledge, and a good teacher who knows how to convey novel insights in a simple and inviting manner.
On the importance of conflict of interest (COI) declaration, Prof. Christopoulos deems that COI disclosures are imperative in order to formally demonstrate the integrity of research and also protect authors from future accusations. However, he also points out that COIs are very unlikely to actually influence published results, and – even if attempted – this would only have a limited and short-lived impact.
Lastly, speaking of what motivates him to write papers, Prof. Christopoulos says, “Academic writing is well-invested time and effort, because it brings authors at the forefront of scientific progress, fosters collaboration within the research community and facilitates personal growth, acquisition of grants and broader recognition.”
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Yago Garitaonaindia
Yago Garitaonaindia is a medical oncology trainee at Puerta de Hierro University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. He obtained his MBBS from Santiago de Compostela University, Spain while complementing his training with internship at Galician Foundation for Genomic Medicine. He is a member of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (GECP). He has special interest in thoracic, pancreatobiliary and skin malignancies. Learn more about Dr. Garitaonaindia from ResearchGate and connect with him on LinkedIn or Twitter @YGaritaonaindia.
Speaking of the role of academic writing plays in science, Dr. Garitaonaindia believes that the recent advances in oncology have only been possible thanks to research. To further improve patients’ quality of life and survival, it is essential for clinical oncologists to be interested in research and not mere prescribers of drugs. “After all, we are the oncologists who know our patients and their needs best, and we are the ones who are with them throughout their journey. They trust us, and we owe it to them to demand the best of ourselves,” adds he.
From Dr. Garitaonaindia’s point of view, the key skill sets of an author are the humility, and enthusiasm for what you do, and knowing how to work as a team and trying to learn as much as you can of those who are older than you and know much more. To him, this section should probably be called outstanding teams. All the medical achievements in medicine have been obtained thanks to the collective efforts of fantastic teams, and he feels lucky to be learning in one of the best in the world, from the hands of brilliant specialists like Dr. Virginia Calvo and Prof. Mariano Provencio.
With regard to research data sharing in scientific writing, Dr. Garitaonaindia deems that sharing knowledge is the best way to learn and work. In that sense, collaborative groups like the GECP do an incredible job and are the best example of how to work in oncology. Scientific divulgation, sharing ideas with other oncologists and teamwork are what have made oncology great, and it should be the path to continue growing and improving in the fight against cancer.
“The best way to serve our patients is through high quality, collaborative research, and this is something that I have been taught since I began my training in oncology. We should always strive to contribute to science, wherever we are, to the best of our abilities,” says Dr. Garitaonaindia.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Andreas Pircher
Andreas Pircher is a physician scientist. He currently holds the position of Assistant-Professor for experimental Hematology and Oncology at the Department of Internal Medicine V at Medical University Innsbruck (MUI), Austria and is leading the oncology team. His main focus is the treatment and translational science of thoracic malignancies. He successfully obtained a PhD degree in the ‘Molecular Oncology’ program of MUI and was funded by an FWF Schrödinger Stipendium in the laboratory of P. Carmeliet as Postdoc characterizing tumor endothelial cells derived from NSCLC and other tumor entities. Furthermore, he finished his training in Internal Medicine and specialization in Hematology and Oncology at MUI. He received the Otto-Kraupp Price for the second-best habilitation in Austria besides other awards. The research network of Dr. Pircher is well embedded at MUI and other universities in Europe (KU Leuven, University of Belfast). Connect with him on ResearchGate and LinkedIn.
In terms of the role academic writing plays in science, Dr. Pircher states that academic writing is crucial because it communicates research findings and ideas within the scholarly community; promotes critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis of knowledge; encourages rigorous research and adherence to ethical standards; enhances credibility and trustworthiness in the academic sphere; develops valuable skills applicable in various professional settings; and facilitates global knowledge sharing and collaboration.
Dr. Pircher reckons that biases are inevitable in academic writing but would like to share some tips on minimizing them: 1) Recognize and acknowledge one’s biases. 2) Conduct thorough research from diverse sources. 3) Use inclusive language and present counterarguments. 4) Cite credible sources and separate fact from opinion. 5) Seek peer review and maintain a professional approach. 6) Check for stereotypes and assumptions. 7) Stay open-minded to new perspectives and evidence.
Dr. Pircher admits that finding time to write papers can be difficult for busy physician scientists. To manage this, he suggests, “Create a schedule with dedicated writing time, set achievable goals, minimize distractions, delegate tasks, collaborate with others, practice effective time management, prioritize work-life balance, seek support from peers, and remain flexible in your approach.” However, patients provide profound motivation for translational scientists, as their real-world impact and personal stories foster empathy, drive collaborative efforts, validate research endeavors, and offer a sense of personal fulfillment.
In Dr. Pircher’s view, authors should follow reporting guidelines such as PRISMA and CARE to enhance transparency, improve reproducibility, ensure accuracy, facilitate critical appraisal, promote research integrity, and comply with journal policies.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Toyoaki Hida
Dr. Toyoaki Hida, MD, PhD, is the Director of Lung Cancer Center at Central Japan International Medical Center, Japan. He spent 2 years in the Biomarkers and Prevention Research Branch of the National Cancer Institute, Maryland. Thereafter, he joined Aichi Cancer Center’s Thoracic Oncology unit in 1996. At Aichi Cancer Center, he was Chief of Thoracic Oncology from 2005, and vice president from 2018. His primary interests are translational medicine on the field of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with targeted therapy and immunotherapy. In the beginning period of his career, his work focused on the studies on lung cancer pathogenesis, and then on the personalized cancer therapy. Recently, he has been working on molecular targets such as ALK- or EGFR-positive lung cancer and cyclooxygenase pathway, as well as immunotherapy.
A good academic paper, according to Dr. Hida, is one that offers new insights into a known problem and presents the reader with clear conclusions and a vision for the future. During the preparation of a paper, he thinks authors should consider the limitations of the study results, and author has to think about the relevance of the study, whether all data were reported and discussed in the manuscript including the negative ones.
Speaking of the need for research to obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Hida thinks it is a crucial way to ensure right and safety of patients, and IRB approval following the relevant regulations is essential for interventional research involving patients. “Without IRB approval, research would be deemed invalid,” adds he.
“The fascinating thing about academic writing is to understand the ‘state-of-the-art’ of the topic of interest and be able to contribute to important topics,” says Dr. Hida.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Su Bin Lim
Dr. Su Bin Lim is an Assistant Professor at School of Medicine, Ajou University, South Korea. She received B.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in Biomedical Engineering from National University of Singapore in 2015 and 2019, respectively. After working as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA, she joined Ajou University School of Medicine, South Korea, as an Assistant Professor in 2021. Her laboratory is devoted to extracting clinically meaningful information from ever-expanding genomic databases, identifying new therapeutic targets for the treatment of cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. She currently serves as an Editorial Board Member of Scientific Data (Springer Nature) and the Committee Member of Korean Society for Bioinformatics (KSBI). Learn more about Dr. Lim here.
Academic writers may encounter difficulties in their writing. In Dr. Lim’s opinion, achieving clear and coherent writing proves to be a challenge, particularly when articulating complex ideas. Additionally, the difficulty extends to expressing thoughts succinctly while preserving both depth and clarity.
In terms of the key skill sets of an author, Dr. Lim highlights that critical thinking and research skills are the most crucial. These skills encompass the capacity to scrutinize information, challenge assumptions, and formulate well-founded arguments.
Speaking of what makes academic writing fascinating, Dr. Lim says that it promotes a comprehensive exploration and scrutiny of ideas, fostering critical thinking and the construction of well-substantiated arguments. Additionally, it plays a pivotal role in the process of knowledge creation, as individuals, through research and scholarly endeavors, actively contribute to the growing body of knowledge within their specific fields. Furthermore, it serves as a means for articulating complex concepts and research findings to a diverse audience.
On the topic of data exchange and sharing in scientific writing, Dr. Lim advocates for authors to share their research data as a means to expedite the pace of scientific discovery. The availability of diverse datasets has the potential to spark fresh ideas and drives innovative research. She adds, “In my own laboratory, we are committed to extracting clinically relevant information from publicly accessible genomic databases to identify novel therapeutic targets for addressing cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. Researchers may uncover unexpected patterns or relationships within the data, leading to groundbreaking advancements in the scientific community.” And from her point of view, sharing data can extend the utility of information beyond the original study's confines, maximize the benefits derived from research that is often funded by public resources, promote collaboration among researchers from various disciplines and have a significant impact on public policy and decision-making.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Bernard A. M. Van der Zeijst
Bernard A. M. Van der Zeijst, PhD, is affiliated with the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands as an emeritus professor ‘Vaccines and Vaccination’. His research activities focus on designing new approaches for vaccine development and immunotherapy, both for infectious diseases and cancer. In teaching, he is dedicated to training young researchers to master all aspects of vaccine development, from discovery to licensing and post-marketing surveillance. He assists national and international research councils in evaluating research. After his MSc education, he started as a researcher in molecular biology, resulting in a PhD in 1972. Then, he did research in both virology and bacteriology at the University of Utrecht (The Netherlands). In 1985, he was appointed to professor and chair. In 1997, he moved to the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven to direct the vaccine activities. He was co-founder of the Netherlands Vaccine Institute, from which he retired in 2009. Connect with Prof. Van der Zeijst on LinkedIn.
In terms of the role academic writing plays in science, Prof. Van der Zeijst thinks scientific papers are the main medium to report progress in science. Generally, they should be written as clearly as possible, including explanatory figures. In addition to giving sufficient experimental details for other researchers to repeat the work described, they should discuss outstanding questions to guide more research in the field.
To ensure his writing is up-to-date, Prof. Van der Zeijst always looks up the latest scientific progress when planning research or reporting the results. He adds, “That is now much easier than when I started as a researcher. In those times you had to go to the library. Now everything can be consulted online.”
Regarding the disclosure of Conflicts of Interests (COI), Prof. Van der Zeijst deems that it is an essential step for authors as they may be biased to put more or just less stress on specific data. Meanwhile, readers should be aware of the authors’ background.
“Discussing scientific progress with peers is stimulating and a main contributor to scientific progress. Writing also helps in organizing your own ideas and prepares you for new experiments,” says Prof. Van der Zeijst.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Janakiraman Subramanian
Dr. Janakiraman Subramanian is a thoracic medical oncologist at Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, USA. He was born in Chennai, India. He did his initial medical education at Sri Ramachandra Medical College in Chennai, India. After graduating from medical school, he continued his medical training in the USA. He completed fellowship in medical oncology at Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, USA. He is the Director for the thoracic oncology clinical and research program at Inova Schar Cancer Institute. He serves as principal investigator and co-investigator for several clinical trials in the treatment of patients with lung cancer. Apart from clinical trials, his research interests include clinical and translational research to identify markers to improve treatment selection for patients with lung cancer. His current focus is on developing tumor and blood-based biomarkers to predict benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. His work has been presented in international conferences and he has over 100 publications. Follow Dr. Subramanian on Twitter @RamSubraMD.
Speaking of a good academic paper, Dr. Subramanian thinks there has no uniform set of criteria to define it. Several organizations and authors have proposed their own sets of criteria that define good research publication. These proposals have a common thread and share many criteria. He points out that the FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical and Relevant) criteria is a useful starting point for investigators. Authors should evaluate if their research meets these criteria before proceeding. However, the FINER criteria apply only to the quality of research. Additional factors such as presentation, publishing journal and accessibility can ensure that the research reaches the right audience and is impactful. High-quality research can be further enhanced when well-written and supported with figures. The release of de-identified research data as a supplement to the publication and Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure can further raise its impact. In order to reach the right readership, selecting and publishing in the right journal is essential. In his opinion, these are some of the key features for a “good academic paper”.
On the importance of disclosure of COI, Dr. Subramanian believes it is essential for any research publication. He explains, “Our trust in research publications relies on the integrity of the study authors and the journal peer-review process. Studies have shown that researchers’ interests can and do influence their research. Disclosure of COI by authors strengthens their integrity and supports readers trust in the results of the study.” Furthermore, he believes an effective disclosure of COI allows peer reviewers of the manuscript and other researchers to have confidence in the research methods and results. This ensures that readers can interpret the studies and arrive at an appropriate conclusion.
(by Camellia Zhou, Brad Li)
Anna Romaszko-Wojtowicz and Andżelika Lorenc
Anna Romaszko-Wojtowicz is a doctor at the Pulmonology Clinic of the Centre for Pulmonary Diseases in Olsztyn, Poland. She is a specialist in internal diseases, currently specializing in lung diseases. She is an author of publications on respiratory diseases, especially lung cancer. She obtained her doctorate in medical sciences based on work on the occurrence of multiple cancers. More information about Dr. Romaszko-Wojtowicz can be found here.
Andżelika Lorenc is an assistant at Department of Biopharmacy Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland. She is a PhD candidate interested in data science, statistics, and machine learning in medical and pharmaceutical sciences. More information about Dr. Lorenc can be found here.
TLCR: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Dr. Romaszko-Wojtowicz: In my opinion, good scientific work is primarily related to a clearly stated thesis and its confirmation in the results of one's research. It is worth assessing the effect of your work critically based on an in-depth analysis of already published scientific works.
Dr. Lorenc: I completely agree and would add that working with engaged co-authors who trust each other in the process and the area of their specialization is the way to significantly improve the work and its results.
TLCR: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Dr. Romaszko-Wojtowicz: The essence of good scientific work is based on the analysis of one's results based on data available in the literature. Undoubtedly, the newer the data, the fresher the view on the results of one's own work. Therefore, it is worth obtaining information from annual conferences of global scientific societies, which contribute to constant knowledge updating.
Dr. Lorenc: As Anna said – we need to focus on the most current reports and findings. That’s the first thing to do to make sure our work is up to date. As a young scientist, I also think that we shouldn’t be afraid to ask for advice and discuss with more experienced colleagues or even write to scientists whose work we are interested in. Sometimes different views on the same topic can help us ‘connect the dots’, which initially were completely unrelated.
TLCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Romaszko-Wojtowicz: In my daily work, the most important goal is the well-being of patients. I hope that each scientific work may ultimately contribute to longer survival and better quality of patients’ lives.
Dr. Lorenc: Writing papers can be challenging, but sharing our findings with other scientists is crucial, not only for one's progress but for the whole scientific field. To make it most effective, I divide the process into small pieces and consequently execute them. This keeps the writing in constant progress even if the steps are sometimes very small because of lack of time.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Ivy Riano
Dr. Ivy Riano is a third-year Hematology and Oncology Fellow at Dartmouth Cancer Center and an Instructor of Medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, U.S. In the summer of 2024, she will begin her first faculty position as a Thoracic and Melanoma Oncologist at her fellowship institution, and she will be appointed Assistant Professor at Dartmouth. She received her Medical Degree from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in Bogota, Colombia, and moved to the U.S. to complete her Internal Medicine residency at MetroWest Medical Center/Tufts School of Medicine in Massachusetts, where she received the Isadore Nathan Rosenberg Clinical Research Award for her research contribution. Dr. Riano’s clinical interests include targeted therapy and a novel combination of immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer, with an emphasis on experimental therapeutics and clinical trials. She has published review articles about controversial topics of immunotherapy in lung cancer and is currently actively involved in clinical and translational research at the Dartmouth Cancer Center. She received the Education Award from the 2023 North America Conference on Lung Cancer by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Apart from her clinical interests in lung cancer, she is also a leading and productive researcher in Global Oncology and cancer health disparities. Dr. Riano is a gender equity advocate and is persistently searching for strategies to improve the representation of minorities in Academia. Connect with her on X @IvyLorena_Md.
From Dr. Riano’s point of view, a fundamental aspect of the scientific process is academic writing, which facilitates not only communication, but collaboration, and knowledge advancement within the scientific community and beyond. The research findings are primarily communicated to the scientific community through academic writing. This contribution to scientific knowledge is without a doubt because it organizes and synthesizes information that is evaluated by experts in the field for its validity and quality through peer review. It is also possible to build upon previous work in scientific writing, contributing to the cumulative nature of knowledge in science.
The field of cancer research is advancing rapidly, which is exciting to Dr. Riano because more therapeutic options are available for patients. Oncologists have the responsibility to keep updated with the latest findings and approvals. To stay updated and contribute new insights to a specific field of research, she suggests conducting regular literature reviews, subscribing to academic journals, networking with other researchers, and engaging in ongoing collaborations and discussions within their scientific community. With these proactive measures, authors can ensure that the research reflects the latest developments and contributes to the evolving body of knowledge.
“I am motivated to write by my passion for science and my desire to provide high-quality information. Academic writing can be demanding and time-consuming, but these motivations, coupled with my pursuit of excellence, often drive me to engage in scholarly work. Also, scientific writing plays a significant role in career advancement within academia. Publishing research papers, articles, and books is often essential for securing funding, establishing credibility, and advancing in one’s academic career,” says Dr. Riano.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Charley Jang
Dr. Charley Jang is a medicine physician trainee at NYU Langone Health in New York, USA. He completed his undergraduate training at the University of Notre Dame where he conducted research on the role of matrix metalloproteinases in breast cancer progression and metastasis using various xenograft models. He subsequently obtained a Master of Science in Clinical Research and his medical degree from the University of California, Los Angeles where his research involved evaluating predictive biomarkers of response to immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. His current research interests focus on targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer harboring oncogenic driver mutations including resistance mechanisms.
In Dr. Jang’s view, academic writing is essential, as it plays a vital role in science by globally disseminating new findings while also inspiring new curiosities that advance his fields. In addition, it is a catalyst for change that promotes human well-being, health, quality of life, and hope. As a physician, he stresses it is important to learn from different perspectives leading to discussions and collaborations that allow physcians to care for patients in the best way they can.
In preparing an academic paper, Dr. Jang thinks it is crucial for authors to remain focused on the primary objective of their study as to convey the results and significance in a concise and clear manner. Second, he advocates for the inclusion of statisticians not only in the preparation of a paper, but from the onset of starting a research study to ensure proper design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results. Third, he believes it is also important that the authors acknowledge and are thoughtful of the limitations of their study as no research study is perfect and these limitations impact how we interpret and apply the findings to patients and practices.
Despite the many responsibilities of a physician, Dr. Jang stresses it is important to remain motivated and set aside time for academic writing. He adds, “What motivates me are my patients as I see every day in the clinic and in the hospital the impact of research and new findings can have on my patients’ lives, their families, and in providing hope.” At the end, he reiterates that being consistent in allocating some amount of time each day to write as well as setting goals to complete a section or aspect of the paper is important.
(by Lucille Ye, Brad Li)
Laura Soucek
Laura Soucek is ICREA Research Professor, Director of the Experimental Therapeutics Research Program and Head of the Models of Cancer Therapies Laboratories at the Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) in Barcelona, Spain. In addition, she is Associate Professor at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, and CEO and co-founder of Peptomyc S.L. She graduated in Biological Sciences in 1996 and obtained her PhD in Genetics and Molecular Biology in 2001 at the University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. She did her postdoc at University California San Francisco (UCSF; 2001-2006), where she was then promoted to Assistant Researcher (2006-2011). She leads her research laboratory at VHIO in Barcelona since then. Dr. Soucek is a key opinion leader in MYC biology and MYC inhibition, as well the developer of the most characterized MYC inhibitor known to date, Omomyc, which is the first MYC inhibitor to have successfully completed a Phase I clinical trial and is now in Phase Ib/II studies. Learn more about Dr. Soucek here, and connect with her on Twitter/X and LinkedIn.
To Dr. Soucek, academic writing is an essential part of any scientist’s life. It is indispensable from the very beginning of one’s scientific career, starting with exams and thesis writing, and it continues being key for proper scientific communication related to publication of results, as well as grant writing and reporting. She believes that the ability to effectively communicate research findings is crucial for success in biological sciences, as professional scientists are generally evaluated by the quantity and quality of articles published, and a good grant application is also a well written one. In addition, she mentions that data and protocols sharing benefits the whole scientific community, making research more efficient and reproducible, in addition to fostering collaborations and innovation. On the other hand, she thinks it is also important to stress that academic communication is not only limited to the scientific audience, but it can - and should - reach the general public as well. It is becoming of paramount importance to counteract the declining trust in science that is increasing in the mainstream media. Scientists are key members of the community, striving to contribute to the progress of humanity, and their work needs to be visible and transparent. “It is our duty to make science accessible and as clear as possible for the lay audience, and establish a dialogue with it, based on trust and understanding,” adds she.
Dr. Soucek sees effective science communication as the most useful way to translate complex concepts into simple notions. A good scientific writer is somebody that is knowledgeable in the field, but also an excellent teacher able to make his/her expertise easily accessible to others. She explains that as the target audience is what determines the details and terms of the communication, the writer should be able to tailor his/her presentation to it. What’s more, it is also essential that a good science communicator stays humble in his/her career, to acknowledge limitations and be willing to continuously learn, correct and update, but also admit mistakes, because the fundamental value behind science remains the Truth. She adds, “We develop hypotheses about how things work and must be willing to change them or accept they are incorrect when necessary, as well as clearly explain the reasoning and results when they are correct.”
From Dr. Soucek’s perspective, scientific progress is a collaborative process, where knowledge sharing benefits everybody. “Being part of it means being willing to communicate one’s findings and ideas, understanding that others will challenge us,” she continues, “However, this gives us the opportunity to further develop our thinking and improve our scientific arguments.” She admits that peer review can be perceived as a slow process sometimes, and criticism can seem to question years of one’s work and often require a significant amount of additional work, but the end result is usually a better version of science and one selves, guaranteeing validity and accuracy of the results and conclusions, preventing, at least to some extent, unconscious and conscious biases.
(by Lucille Ye, Brad Li)
Margrethe Bang Henriksen
Margrethe Bang Henriksen, is a Ph.D. student who currently works in Department of Oncology, Vejle University Hospital, Vejle, Denmark. She is supported by the Danish Research Center for Lung Cancer, and is a Member of VELCRO (Vejle Lung Cancer Research Organization). In her Ph.D., she has worked on early detection of lung cancer by using prediction models to refine the screening criteria. Her study activities reflect her focus areas in both cancer epidemiology, as well as the use of AI models (machine learning, natural language processing, baysian networks) on large datasets representing hospital data as well as primary care data. She is currently receiving ongoing special training in oncology, with prior experience in internal medicine, acute medicine, and primary care. Connect with Margrethe on LinkedIn.
As a Ph.D. student, Margrethe has faced many challenges in writing. Initially, she struggled with writer's block, unable to meet her own standards and unsure of how to structure her thoughts effectively on paper. In her research that blends AI and healthcare, she has found it challenging to bring together these two different fields. She points out that explaining complex technical stuff in a way that doctors can understand, and explaining medical concepts to tech experts, is not always easy. And there is still some reluctance to embrace AI in healthcare, partly because it is hard to grasp all the technical details. Therefore, she thinks it is crucial to explain AI solutions, like prediction models, in a way that doctors who are not familiar with AI can understand.
From Margrethe’s perspective, ensuring a critical approach to writing requires a thorough understanding of the relevant literature. She admits that this task can feel overwhelming, but consulting meta-analyses or good search strategies can help simplify it. “If I struggle to identify critiques and limitations in my work, and am not able to get critical feedback from my study group,” she shares, “we often seek input from colleagues working in the same field.” Achieving a balanced perspective, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses without bias, remains an ongoing discipline that she is continuously trying to improve.
Margrethe believes it is very important to follow those clearly defined reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, CONSORT and PRISMA) during preparation of manuscripts. In her work with developing and validating prediction models, she has encountered challenges due to the lack of transparency and the variety of approaches used over time. And this diversity makes it hard to compare studies and replicate or validate models on different datasets. Therefore, she thinks it is vital for writers to embrace these guidelines to ensure the structure and transparency of their studies. She highlights that this not only facilitates comparisons with other studies but also enhances the overall quality of manuscripts and peer-reviews.
(by Lucille Ye, Brad Li)
Toshiyuki Nakai
Toshiyuki Nakai is an Assistant Professor of Respiratory Medicine at Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine (Osaka, Japan). He graduated from Shimane University Faculty of Medicine in 2008 and obtained his medical license; he earned his PhD in the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University in 2015. Since 2016, he has undergone specialized training in respiratory endoscopy at the National Cancer Center Hospital (Tokyo, Japan). Currently, he leads and directs the respiratory endoscopy team at Osaka Metropolitan University Hospital.His research interests span the entire respiratory endoscopy field, encompassing bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions using R-EBUS, diagnosis of mediastinal lymph nodes using EBUS-TBNA, diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma using semi-rigid pleuroscopy, and cryobiopsy. His overarching goal is to achieve maximum diagnostic effectiveness with minimal invasiveness through respiratory endoscopy.
In Dr. Nakai’s opinion, writing academic papers allows many to critique the validity and effectiveness of the research and medical practice from different perspectives. He further elaborates that constructive exchange of ideas with experts worldwide leading to the next research will enable safer and more effective procedures for the patients. Furthermore, many of the actual medical treatments and procedures performed on patients are heavily influenced by the region and the clinician's skill level. He points out that the best way to correct these biases and find the best means of medicine is to gather information through academic papers. Therefore, he believes writing academic papers is very important for clinicians as well as researchers.
Speaking of the skill sets of an author, Dr. Nakai indicates that the key is to have fun and keep researching. Continuing to research and write papers adds depth to our knowledge and gives us more opportunities to interact with experts. He believes that by enjoying such cycles, authors will be able to stay in this job for a long time. On the other hand, he stresses that it is also important to be persistent in completing the paper to the end. “There are many hardships in the process of writing papers on the results of our research, and I always feel discouraged,” says Dr. Nakai, “but by overcoming these difficulties, we can grow as a researcher.”
Although academic writing takes a lot of time and effort, Dr. Nakai believes that one of the sincerest acts of a clinician towards his or her patients is to continue writing research papers, validating clinical results and constantly seeking the latest findings. This is why he is always motivated to continue writing papers as a researcher. Another thing that motivates him is the validation of new techniques for procedures. As a respiratory endoscopy specialist, he finds the study of innovative new techniques produced in clinical practice very attractive. The next task for him as an educator is to pass on this know-how to the next generations so that they can become better researchers than himself.
“My colleagues and beloved families are always supportive and encourage me in my writing. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart,” says Dr. Nakai.
(by Lucille Ye, Brad Li)