In 2023, many JOVS authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors who have been making immense efforts in their research fields, with a brief interview of their unique perspective and insightful view as authors.

Outstanding Authors (2023)

Aleksander Dokollari, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, USA

Johannes Bonatti,University of Pittsburgh, USA

Boon-Hean Ong, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore

Filip P. Casselman, OLV Clinic, Belgium

Rodrigo Cañada Trofo Surjan, University of São Paulo Medical School, Brazil

Shusuke Endo, Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Japan

Olivia Fanucchi, Pisan University Hospital Cisanello, Italy

Adrian Zehnder, Cantonal Hospital of Winterthur, Switzerland

Mohammad El-Diasty, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Centre, USA

Outstanding Author

Aleksander Dokollari

Dr. Aleksander Dokollari, MD, PhD, currently serves as a Research Assistant Professor at Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, USA. He completed his medical school at the University of Firenze in Italy in 2010, then his residency at University of Siena in 2017. He went on to complete the Adult Cardiac Surgery Clinical Fellowship at the University of Toronto from 2018 to 2020, and obtained his PhD in Aortic Surgery from the University of Maastricht in 2022. His areas of interest include Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery, Mitral Valve Surgery, Aortic Valve Surgery, TAVR, Mitraclip, and Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery. Connect with Dr. Dokollari on LinkedIn and Twitter.

JOVS: Why do we need academic writing? What is so important about it?

Dr. Dokollari: Academic writing advances the medical field and, in my context, the cardiac surgery field. While breakthrough achievements include operations and techniques that can reshape the way we look at surgery, these achievements and in particular surgical techniques need to be described into manuscript for other surgeons and doctors to be able to understand them and apply them on their own patients. For example, two of the most commonly performed operations, namely coronary artery bypass surgery and aortic valve surgery, could not be promoted worldwide without the knowledge shared by previous literature by other surgeons. In this context, the aortic valve-sparing techniques including the David procedure, the Ozaki technique, and the Ross technique have radically shaped patients’ life expectancy and quality of life in those undergoing aortic valve surgery with no need for anticoagulation and repeat intervention. In addition, sternal sparing techniques for coronary artery bypass surgery also have had a positive impact on the quality of life of patients with coronary artery disease.

JOVS: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?

Dr. Dokollari: Academic writing is open to students, residents, researchers and medical doctors in terms of ideas. However, as the Donebedian framework model states, the research has to be divided into 3 components: structure, process and outcomes. While having ideas is important, it is not always necessary. To have innovative ideas, researchers should be acquainted with the topic that they are interested in, understand the type of studies, how the studies are conducted, get informed on related literature in the specific topic, participate in scientific meetings and, only then, provide qualitative feedback on the topic. However, a mentor is required to follow the most suitable pathway in the academic field.

JOVS: 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. Dokollari: As technology progresses by leaps and bounds, researchers should keep up-to-date with these innovations. In this context, scientific meetings, medical literature from PubMed, Google Scholar and other databases should be continuatively referenced.

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

Dr. Dokollari: It is vital for COI to be disclosed. The lack of disclosure can lead to several negative outcomes in the researcher’s academic field and also have a negative impact on the patients. With the increased federal scrutiny regarding foreign influence on U.S. research, the lack of COI disclosure can negatively turn on the negative pathway with removal of medical/scientific license and loos of credibility in the scientific community. In addition, results from clinical trials can be impacted involuntarily by researchers. In this scenario, it is positive that the researchers have already declared their COI.

(By Brad Li, Nicole Li)

Johannes Bonatti

Dr. Johannes Bonatti is a cardiac surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Heart and Vascular Institute and Professor/Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. He has performed cardiac surgery using robotic devices since 2001. He introduced and ran robotic heart surgery programs at Innsbruck Medical University, the University of Maryland, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, the Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, and most recently re-introduced robotic cardiac surgery at UPMC. He held academic and leadership positions at these institutions and performed several “world firsts” including the first successful quadruple totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting procedure in robotic fashion. Dr. Bonatti has published more than 250 papers and has given scientific talks at respected meetings around the world. He served as the President of the Minimally Invasive Robotics Association (MIRA) from 2011-2012 and as President of the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) during the 2017/2018 term.

JOVS: What are the key skill sets of an author?

Dr. Bonatti: A scientific author should have an understanding what value written information represents for our societies and humanity overall. The invention of language and writing were key steps in development of human civilization. The same is true for printing of books, newspapers, journals, and electronic media as communication tools. The immense progress of medicine and surgery over the last century was tremendously supported by written communications from colleagues who took on the demanding work of reporting clinical and experimental results. As such the ability to contribute to the body of knowledge is one driver for many authors who write scientific articles. They regard it as a noble obligation and feel pride in being part of the knowledge generation process.

A scientific author should feel at least some pleasure in the creative aspect of writing. A somewhat confused arrangement of data and thoughts is being concentrated into a structured piece of work. The ability to conceptualize and explain in words is essential for anyone who wants to write for scientific media. Having a feeling for language helps and recognizing the influential power of words is useful.

For a successful start into scientific authorship, reading a lot of literature and understanding the basic principles of how papers should be structured is essential. I also suggest to read into “how to write a scientific paper” articles or take corresponding courses. Once you understand the principles, the writing will become easier.

Communicating well with colleagues and discussing scientific material frequently is another helpful approach. Finding a mentor who coaches a young author is a lucky event and extremely helpful to avoid mistakes that many beginners make. But peers can also help a beginner to get started. Research is much more fun if done in a group, I would even state it only works in a team approach. Much can be learned if you review papers of colleagues in your research group or if you are invited to review papers in scientific journals. Thorough, critical, and objective review will help refine your own writing skills.

I also suggest enjoy the emotional aspects involved with the creation of a scientific manuscript. Many writers will report pleasure and joy seeing words become sentences, paragraphs, and whole manuscripts. Writing is a known factor which can induce the phenomenon of “flow”, a state where the one experiencing it loses the sense of time and where hours pass without knowing that this happened. Creativity and brain performance are enhanced in this state and all that is associated with release of mediators induce positive emotions and a consecutive feeling of happiness.

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

Dr. Bonatti: Concerning this aspect of scientific writing, I suggest always be critical and objective about your own results. Publication bias is a big problem in the scientific literature and reviewers as well as publishers tend to favor studies which reveal positive results. Therefore, I think it is important to remain critical in the discussion part of a paper and include even information or citations that challenge your current results. If you are a reviewer, resist the temptation to reject manuscript that challenge your own school of thought or the surgical methods you are applying. As a writer do not hide problems with a surgical, interventional, or medical method or unfavorable outcome associated with it, the scientific community needs real world results communicated to make progress.

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

Dr. Bonatti: Yes, time and effort are significant if you want to be a productive academic surgeon. I have experienced this myself for years and I cannot count the hours that I spent writing even on the bus or subway to work and on planes or trains travelling to scientific conferences, or when the kids were asleep when I was a young surgeon. By the way, these sessions were sometimes very effective. Concerning time for writing, one should be aware that scheduling sessions will always be challenging and that much work will have to be done spontaneously whenever even a few minutes are available. I think the ability to compartmentalize the writing of a paper into modules and be happy with every single piece that is completed is a skill that can and should be developed.

What motivates me to go through all this? Again, I find pleasure in the process of creating something that has not been written before. I also get excited when I see a meaningful graph or table that is generated in a statistics program out of data that my group and I collected. Communicating the results and seeing them published online or in print (an earlier experience) is a moment of excitement. I remember the times when I received the printed proofs of a paper sent in the mail earlier and it is equally exciting when they come in through email now. In print, your paper will always look different in a very positive way and it will fill you with pride seeing it and sharing it with your colleagues. Equally exciting is when you find your work on PubMed or Google searches.

An earlier motivation was of course very practical, namely to make moves on the career ladder at a university. “Publish or parish” is still a tough principle that you will face in the academic environment. But, as mentioned, tackling this challenge can be associated with big fun.

JOVS: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?

Dr. Bonatti: As much as teamwork is essential for scientific productivity on a local level, inter-institutional and international cooperation is key for further progress in medical and surgical sciences. This of course includes data sharing and constant multi-institutional collaboration. The individual researcher benefits from input from multiple information sources. Our community benefits from integrating international data sources into big data pools, registries, and international and multicenter studies. I highly recommend joining corresponding projects as it widens your horizon and makes your research much more powerful and conclusive.

(By Brad Li, Nicole J. Li)

Boon-Hean Ong

Clinical Assistant Professor Boon-Hean Ong is a Senior Consultant and the Director of Thoracic Surgery at the National Heart Centre Singapore. He graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, National University of Singapore, then completed cardiothoracic surgery training at the National Heart Centre Singapore. He was then awarded the Singapore Ministry of Health-SingHealth HMDP Award to pursue an advanced clinical fellowship in general thoracic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School in the US. Subsequently, he returned from fellowship training to practice cardiothoracic surgery with subspecialty interests in minimally invasive thoracic surgery (particularly uniportal VATS and image-guided surgery using the hybrid operating room), thoracic oncology and lung transplantation at the National Heart Centre Singapore. He is currently the Service Chief at the Singapore General Hospital campus for the SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre and is the Vice Chairman of the Chapter of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, Academy of Medicine Singapore.

Dr. Ong believes that academic writing represents the most important avenue for documenting any significant work of scientific discovery and disseminating that information to the wider public. It is the physical materialization of scientific work done by an individual or group, followed by rigorous scrutiny from critical review by peers in that area of science. The end result is a culmination of the effort of many separate, distinct entities working together to advance scientific knowledge for the betterment of mankind.

Speaking of reporting guidelines, Dr. Ong considers them as introducing a degree of standardization in academic writing that helps not only the authors, but also readers and reviewers. When clear guidelines exist for a given type of study or manuscript, he points out, the authors can use them as a structured template for the preparation of their manuscript, which aids the writing process. The resulting manuscript is beneficial for readers as well because the information is conveyed in a consistent format and is more easily understandable. Finally, he adds, reviewers are also able to use the guidelines as a checklist to ensure the minimum standards are followed for a particular type of manuscript, and can focus more time and energy on evaluating the actual scientific merit of the manuscript.

Science advances rapidly day by day. Dr. Ong expresses, “Like everyone else, I try to keep in touch with the latest advances in the field by reading my favorite journals, attending scientific meetings, and discussing with colleagues on a regular basis. In addition, one of the positive consequences of the recent COVID pandemic is the vast increase in the number of educational webinars available online which has also helped me keep up-to-date with the cutting-edge research in my field, and I hope this trend will continue in the future even after the pandemic recedes into distant memory.”

(by Masaki Lo, Hailing Lian)

Filip P. Casselman

Filip P. Casselman, MD PhD FEBCTS, who is a certified Sommelier, has been trained in General and Cardiac Surgery at the University of Leuven, Belgium (1991-1997). He continued his training with a fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (1997-1998) and at the St Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands (1999-2000). Since 2001, he is working in the Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery at the OLV Clinic in Aalst, Belgium (Founder Dr. Hugo Vanermen). He is a member of the Belgian Association of CardioThoracic Surgery, the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American Association of Thoracic Surgery. Dr. Casselman’s research interests include minimally invasive surgery (robotic and videoscopic), valvular reconstructive surgery, percutaneous valve replacement and arrhythmia surgery. He is actively involved in cardiac clinical research and has participated in multiple multicenter trials (including Syntax trial, Partner and Prevail trial, Fame 3, etc.). He is (co)author of more than 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has given more than 280 presentations at international meetings. He is the current Chair of the Acquired Domain and a member of the Council in EACTS. Connect with Dr. Casselman on Facebook.

Talking about the role of academic writing, Dr. Casselman believes through publishing clinical results, the researcher and his/her team have a much better view on what they are doing, what the results are - especially in view of what they are expecting, what they can do better, what they should not continue to do, and what they should change, etc. And communicating these results through academic publications enhances clinical insight for everyone involved in the field.

Dr. Casselman shares his keys to keeping new insights to the field of research. He thinks following other investigators’ works is very important. In his opinion, researchers can get inspirations from online publications or ahead-of-print publications. At the same time, researchers have a broader exposure to other people’s research, which helps them substantially in the guidance of their own research.

Speaking of Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure in academic research, Dr. Casselman thinks COI should always be declared, even if not relevant to the topic discussed. He believes that most researchers are trustable in what and how they report, but a hidden influence may always arise, especially in the more subjective part of a paper e.g. the discussion section. In his words, humans remain humans and therefore readers should be notified about any COI in order to allow them to judge the reporting themselves.

Lastly, Dr. Casselman would like to say a few words to encourage academic writers, “I applaud anyone who is contributing knowledge and further insights to the existing evidence. So much is known, yet so much more is still to be discovered or optimized. Contributing to (clinical in my case) research broadens your own scope and makes you understand far better your clinical practice and why things should better be done this or that way. Keep going. Analyzing results will make you a better surgeon and increase your professional satisfaction.”

(by Xing Liu, Brad Li)

Rodrigo Cañada Trofo Surjan

Rodrigo Canada Trofo Surjan, MD, PhD, FACS, is a surgery residency in liver transplantation and surgery at Clinics Hospital - University of São Paulo Medical School. He earned his PhD degree in Surgery in University of São Paulo Medical School. He is studying for post-doctorate and MBA on robotic pancreatic surgery and hyperammonemic encephalopathy. Connect with Dr. Surjan on Instagram and LinkedIn.

As access to quality publication has become much easier than a few years ago, academic writing, to Dr. Surjan, has become part not only of scientific development but also medical education. In his view, scientific findings and experience must be shared in order to increase medical culture, increase data sharing and allow, in the near future, artificial intelligence (AI) interpretations of scientific data.

To avoid biases in one’s writing, Dr. Surjan reminds authors to publish the papers with ethics. He adds, “We should reach and interpret our results in favor of science but not to ourselves.” He recommends that authors should focus attentions on publication ethics. Another way is to count with experienced and prepared peer review.

For Dr. Surjan, it is more about passion that motivates him to keep writing. He stresses that it is not about recognition or academic (neither financial) interests. He encourages researchers, after work, to enjoy writing a paper, enjoy developing studies to solve everyday challenges, and enjoy searching for answers and developing new techniques.

Dr. Surjan goes on to talk about the necessity of data sharing. He thinks that in present days, one very valuable asset is big data. “Increasing volume and velocity of data sharing, associated with timely evaluation of the information, such as AI, will solve many of the unanswered scientific question we have. Few years ago, we shared data to allow others to learn a little by our experience. Today we may think about collecting data to systematic reviews, but in a few years we will probably testify a much more efficient interpretation of data,” says he.

(by Xing Liu, Brad Li)

Shunsuke Endo

Shusuke Endo, MD, PhD, is currently in charge of management of Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center as a director. His main research areas are surgery for locally advanced lung cancer, thoracoscopic surgery, and hemodynamics in heart and vessels. Recently, his project is concerned with organising national clinical database for thoracic surgery in Japan as a chairman of the committee in Japanese Association for Chest Surgery. His current major focus is on hemodynamic changes of left atrium after major pulmonary, which can be analyzed with use of computer calculations.

In academic writing, Dr. Endo thinks the most important and difficult issue is whether the submitted paper is similar to or different from results concluded in the previously published paper. Hence, authors must be cautious when presenting thesis following careful discussion. In addition, he suggests authors have description and/or illustration of message in a way that is easy for readers to understand during preparation of a paper.

Speaking of the role of academic writing, Dr. Endo shares, “Message can be clearly conveyed as one of new discoveries to many researchers through published papers.　Furthermore, there is a possibility that we can eventually contribute to humanity with the message.”

As medicine advances, ethical considerations are inevitable. Dr. Endo believes that auditing ethical issues from the perspective of a third company through institutional review board is important in order to prevent medical runaways.

(by Xing Liu, Brad Li)

Olivia Fanucchi

Olivia Fanucchi completed her medical school at the University of Pisa in 2002, then finished her residency in Thoracic Surgery at University of Pisa in 2007. Currently, she is a staff member of Division of Thoracic Endoscopy at Pisan University Hospital Cisanello, also known as Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana (AOUP), Italy. Her research focuses on advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy and the latest techniques for interventional bronchoscopy including EBUS, BLVR, cryobiopsy and application of rigid bronchoscopy techniques for central airway obstruction.

Dr. Fanucchi thinks academic writing consists of three fundamental moments: the first step is based on the collection of sensible experiences, the second step based on the formulation of the hypotheses in mathematical characters, and the third step based on the experimental verification of the hypothesis. In her view, academic writing is the primary channel for sharing data, experiments, results and insights in all fields of science, assuring the validation and the reproducibility of the hypothesis by other researchers. Additionally, academic writing may create a network of experts, improving investigations in a particular field, and encouraging new researches and new studies.

In order to stay updated with latest publications, Dr. Fanucchi has constant and periodic research of new published papers with regard to the interest fields for researchers. She points out that reading papers could be the starting point for development of new studies, since it takes new hypothesis or new data interpretations that previously were not evaluated. She adds, “In the beginning, I was involved in a European multi-centre study. This permitted me to improve my knowledge and my skills in study design and data analysis. Additionally, this multi-institutional experience allowed me to make interesting and productive relationships, sharing ideas and different points of view.”

From Dr. Fanucchi’s perspective, conflicts of interest (COIs) are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgment regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. On the one hand, researchers have to consider that COIs may be involuntarily sources of bias and may lead to the skepticism of clinical recommendations. On the other hand, some studies alluded to the pervasive nature of financial and non-financial relationships between clinicians and manufacturers. For these reasons, in order to avoid any possible negative impact on scientific community, she thinks it is ethically essential to disclose any possible COIs. Furthermore, she reckons that the consequences of COI declaration absence should not be underestimated. She takes an extreme case of unethical practices of A. Wakefield as an example, “He postulated a connection between the measles–mumps–rubella vaccine and autism–enterocolitis. Despite Wakefield’s license to medical practice was revoked, fears about vaccines began to occur in the public, leading to crisis of confidence to scientific community, with consequences also in the COVID-19 era. Probably, this terrible incident would have been prevented, if Mr. Wakefield had declared his COI ($670,000 as a consultant to lawyers).”

(by Xing Liu, Brad Li)

Adrian Zehnder

Dr. Adrian Zehnder, MD, is a thoracic surgeon at Cantonal Hospital of Winterthur, Switzerland, Deputy Head in General Thoracic Surgery Department. He has been trained in this institution since 2005 and completed his education in thoracic surgery at the University Hospital of Zurich in 2014-2015 as well as at the University Hospital of Berne, Inselspital, in General Thoracic Surgery Department from 2015-2017 and Shanghai Chest Hospital in 2017. His areas of interest include all minimally-invasive surgery like tissue sparing resections in oncologic patients (segmentectomy), 3D-model implementation during surgery or first rib resections for thoracic outlet syndrome. He has performed uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery as well as robotic surgery in various techniques (since 2013). Beside his clinical work, he is involved in the development of new robotic devices for the use in thoracic surgery. Connect with Dr. Zehnder on LinkedIn .

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

Dr. Zehnder: There are several key elements that should be encompassed by a good academic paper. Each is contributing to its overall quality and effectiveness in conveying research findings. The elements should ensure clarity, credibility and engagement for the reader. Due to the huge datasets, it is important to distinguish between relevant and less valid data.

First of all, an academic paper should focus on improving patient treatments with either bringing out new ideas, strategies/techniques or adapting established regimens for better outcomes. As an example, with the development of a robotic approach for first rib resection, a previously demanding procedure could be successfully improved so that the technique is now spreading worldwide in a rapid manner.

Secondly, it is essential to have an attractive beginning in a paper. Preparing a manuscript already starts with a title that draws the interest of a reader, immediately. And the abstract has to include concise information that accurately represents the paper’s subject matter and purpose. It serves as a quick overview so readers may decide whether to delve into the full paper or not.

Thirdly, for the quality of our work, we should carefully put some effort in data collection and methodology. A detailed explanation of research methods and procedures enables the replication of the study while clarity and statistical precision are crucial. Also, the results should be objectively presented without any interpretation.

Last but not least, in the discussion, the author should then interpret the findings with a clear conclusion on what can be drawn or learned from the result, always keeping in mind to help readers to understand and enhance their daily practice in treating patients, since the struggle for ameliorating quality of treatment remains one of the most central goals in our scientific work.

JOVS: What are the key skill sets of an author?

Dr. Zehnder: Since science is quite a complex intellectual pursuit and time consuming as well, every author of scientific manuscripts is blessed when gifted with patience, perseverance and dedication. A deep understanding of the research process, including formulating adequate research questions, designing experiments or studies, collecting data and drawing meaningful conclusions are some of the skills that are required for success in writing a relevant article. Of course, competences in data analysis techniques and relevant software tools for processing and interpreting research data are essential.

Concerning translation of your research to change everyday practice, an effective communication is crucial, both in writing and in presentations. This includes the ability to convey complex concepts also to a non-expert audience. Additionally, an effective teamwork and collaboration skills become important, particularly when co-authoring papers with multiple contributors. Certain questions can solely be addressed in multi-institutional or multi-centre concepts and high numbers in datasets are needed. Therefore, networking, building and maintaining professional relationships within the scientific community can facilitate collaborations and access to research opportunities. Scientific authors continually develop and refine these skills over their careers to effectively contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field and communicate their findings to diverse audiences.

JOVS: Why do you choose to publish in Journal of Visualized Surgery?

Dr. Zehnder: The journal's scope must align well with the subject matter and focus of my research. The Journal of Visualized Surgery, for example, specializes in surgical and minimally-invasive research and related topics. It features a good target audience for innovative procedures and a straight peer-review process with the possibility for open access publishing that helps to widespread your work. The journal’s publication timeline is quick and the editorial board offers a good expertise and well-respected members that enhance the journal’s credibility. It adheres to high ethical standards in their published work.

(by Xing Liu, Brad Li)

Mohammad El-Diasty

Dr. Mohammad El-Diasty is a Cardiac Surgeon at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Centre, Cleveland, Ohio. He finished his residency training in Cardiac Surgery and obtained a PhD Degree from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. He completed advanced sub-specialty fellowship training in mitral surgery, aortic surgery, and multi-arterial off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in Canada, the USA and the UK. He focuses on multiple non-clinical aspects of patient care such as clinical research, medical education, managerial and leadership skills, and quality assessment and improvement. Dr. El-Diasty is the founder and Lead Investigator at the Cardiac Surgery Research Lab. His main areas of research interest include: (1) improving clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery; (2) the molecular basis of postoperative atrial fibrillation and (3) local pericardial inflammatory response after cardiac surgery. More information about the lab can be found on its website and X. And connect with Dr. El-Diasty on LinkedIn.

Being asked about the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, Dr. El-Diasty thinks it is securing enough time for scientific writing. Most surgeons are burdened by their busy clinical schedules and have no protected academic time. This can be demonstrated by the relatively low volume of academic productivity by the surgical community as compared to other fields of medical practice. Also, securing adequate funding to conduct research studies remains a significant obstacle in front of most academic surgeons. This became significantly worse during the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in the redirection of major funding resources toward COVID-related research.

From Dr. El-Diasty’s perspective, it is very important to select the co-authors adequately. Each co-author should be able to add value to the paper. He gives an example, “Inviting a co-author who is experienced in a specific area related to the topic of the paper is an excellent strategy to enrich the paper and to add credibility to its contents.” Also, one of the responsibilities of the lead author is to ensure the integrity and reliability of the data presented in the paper. Finally, journal selection is very important so the paper can reach the right group of readers who would benefit from its scientific content.

Dr. El-Diasty shares a sensitive situation he occasionally encountered during academic writing: one of the co-authors was not happy with the order of authors after it had been agreed upon. He thinks the senior author needs to handle this with caution and wisdom under this circumstance. Explaining the roles of each of the authors and explaining the rationale of the order of the authorship can help solve this situation. He further stresses the importance of establishing the roles of each of the co-authors and the tentative order of their names at a very early stage.

Furthermore, Dr. El-Diasty thinks reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT and TREND, are very important as quality metrics to assure the quality of research. Abiding by these guidelines can help academic writers during the different stages of the process of conducting research. These guidelines can be very useful in terms of formulating the research question, research methodology, reporting results and many other aspects of the research process. He therefore strongly advises all researchers, especially those in the early phase of their careers, to adopt and follow these guidelines to maximize the quality of their research.

(by Christie Lv, Brad Li)