In 2024, many JSS 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 (2024)

Don Young Park, UC Irvine, USA

W. Chase Johnson, The University of Texas Health Science Center, USA

Alexander C. Aretakis, University of Colorado, USA

Igor Radalov, Hospital del Mar, Spain

Outstanding Author

Don Young Park

Dr. Don Young Park is an Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon specializing in endoscopic spine surgery and outpatient spine surgery. He trained at Stanford and was recently Associate Clinical Professor and Vice Chair of Quality and Safety for the UCLA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery. He is now a Professor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery and the Director of the Advanced Endoscopic and Outpatient Spine Program at UC Irvine, one of the first of its kind in the country. Dr. Park has published both basic science and clinical peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as written textbook chapters on minimally invasive and endoscopic spine surgery. He has won multiple “Best Paper” awards from the North American Spine Society and the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery for his research. His current research interests include clinical outcome studies in spinal endoscopy to advance the knowledge of endoscopic spine surgery. Learn more about Dr. Park here, and connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Park’s view, a good academic paper should be well written and well thought out, even from the very beginning planning stages of the study. The topic of the study should be original, relevant, and interesting so that the results of the study can advance the field of spine surgery. The strengths and weaknesses of the study should be well described in the paper, and the discussion section should not just list these limitations but thoughtfully discuss how the study was limited in methodology and how it affects the conclusions.

The most commonly encountered difficulty in academic writing, according to Dr. Park, is accounting for all the issues and problems with the design and results of the study that are brought to light during the review process. Even well-designed studies often require revisions of manuscripts to address the issues brought up by reviewers. Thinking and planning ahead during the design of the study and the writing process of the manuscript can help reduce the revisions necessary for publication. To him, it is also very difficult to have an original thought in research and develop an original study that has not been conducted before.

“Academic writing should help the field of spine surgery progress over time. New techniques and technologies can be either beneficial or detrimental, and good academic writing with well-designed studies can provide evidence to advance our knowledge. This experience is gratifying to be able to push the field into the future, one study at a time,” says Dr. Park.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

W. Chase Johnson

W. Chase Johnson is a fifth-year neurosurgery resident at The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. He completed his undergraduate degree at The University of Arkansas in Biochemistry, then went on to complete medical school at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. He has significant clinical and research interests in minimally invasive spine surgery and spine trauma. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

From Dr. Johnson’s perspective, the essential elements of a good academic paper include a clear objective, robust methodology, meticulous data collection and analysis, insightful discussion, adherence to ethical standards, and rigorous peer review. In the realm of spine surgery, he believes a good academic paper will contribute to the existing literature and help guide clinical practice or contain enough evidence to change clinical practice.

In Dr. Johnson’s opinion, the most important aspect authors should keep in mind when preparing for a study or paper is the clinical question they wish to answer and whether or not the information in their paper will fill a gap in the existing literature and help guide management in the field of spine surgery.

“The Journal of Spine Surgery offers a specialized platform dedicated to spinal research and clinical practice. Publishing here ensures that my work reaches a targeted audience of spine surgery experts, facilitating meaningful exchange of knowledge and advancements in the field,” says Dr. Johnson.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Alexander C. Aretakis

Alexander C. Aretakis, MD, was born and raised near Denver, CO, prior to attending Northwestern University, where he received his bachelor’s in Developmental Neuroscience and Psychology. He then matriculated to the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Currently, he has nearly graduated from the University of Colorado Orthopedic Residency and will be a pediatric orthopedic fellow at Nemours DuPont Children’s Hospital in Delaware. Alexander’s future plans include a pediatric orthopedic career with a subspecialty focus on spine surgery as well as hip and limb deformity. His research interests will be primarily clinical, with a focus on improving spinal surgery safety and a better understanding of choosing fusion levels in scoliosis surgery. He will be joined in Delaware by his wife and two dogs, and in his free time enjoys spending time outdoors with the three of them skiing, mountain biking, and fly fishing.

Alexander believes the most important components of a practice-changing paper are a clear question, solid methods that get at the true nature of the question, a lack of “cover-up” of any shortcomings, and a strong discussion that gives the reader insight into the author’s rationale behind their conclusions. No paper can be perfect, but including an honest discussion about limitations can help readers appropriately understand how to incorporate the paper into their practice. Lastly, he points out that the discussion about the author’s conclusions can really benefit the reader – no one knows the data/study like the authors, and having their insight into the research can really deepen the reader’s understanding of the literature.

In Alexander’s opinion, one of the hardest things the orthopedic field has to deal with in research is uniformity of data and being able to extrapolate one paper’s findings across the whole library of literature and between wide-ranging practices. Therefore, using reporting guidelines, such as STROBE and PRISMA, even if flawed, is a critical first step to allowing researchers to answer questions in a broader field.

“As I am nearing the start of my own independent practice and having seen the effort that goes into producing high-quality research, I want to say thank you to everyone who has come before my generation in research. There is truly no easy part about getting a paper out the door, at least for me. But at the start of my career, I was already in a much better position to better take care of my patients because of all the researchers who have decided to take the hard route and put their findings out there for the world to see,” says Alexander.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Igor Radalov

Igor Radalov is a young radiologist in Hospital del Mar, located in Barcelona, Spain. He received training in Hospital Clínic Barcelona and did a pediatric internship in one of Europe's most highly specialized centers for the treatment of children and pregnant women, Sant Joan de Déu, where he worked with some of the best pediatric surgeons and interventional radiologists. As of now, he works as a musculoskeletal radiologist with particular interest on interventional spinal radiology. He believes that it is essential for radiologists to take a step forward, use their experience in CT-guided procedures and work as a team with spinal surgeons in treating complex cases with minimally invasive options. They have an incredible multidisciplinary team in Hospital del Mar composed of spinal surgeons, oncologists and musculoskeletal radiologists with great amount of expertise in vertebral augmentation and bone and soft-tissue ablation.

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

Dr. Radalov: I would say that the lack of clarity is a big one, because expressing an academic idea must be in a concise and clear manner, devoiding of any ambiguous statements and vague language. Sometimes this can be especially hard to do for non-native English authors, because we might generate thoughts and ideas in our mother language and then translate them into English, which can make our writing vague and incoherent. We also might wrongly believe that overusing complicated words would make our writing more successful, but the truth is that medical academic writing must be as straightforward as possible.

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

Dr. Radalov: I believe that it is extremely important to choose the appropriate evidence before synthesis because ultimately the systematic review can only be as good as the information we feed it. For me, it is useful first to write down a list of all the steps involved in the process and then try to identify what could go wrong in each step and try to mitigate that risk. It is also mandatory to make a well-focused search in the highest number of databases and online finders. I would like to add that if authors have the knowledge of different languages, it would be very useful for them to also search for evidence in non-English databases because sometimes you can find good insights.

JSS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Radalov: Disclosing COI is an important, often overlooked, step in all research and we should strive to make it easily accessible to journal readers in the medical field. Having an undisclosed COI can seriously harm the credibility of even the most well structured and apparently unbiased research. Nevertheless, we should also bear in mind that having a COI does not automatically mean that the study is flawed, nor having a lack of a COI is an automatic indicator of a credible study. We should treat it as one of the tools at our disposal to assess the integrity of a scientific research.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)