In 2025, 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 (2025)

Quinn T. Ehlen, University of Miami, USA

Takeshi Sasagawa, Toyama Prefectural Central Hospital, Japan

Mohamed Alhantoobi, McMaster University, Canada

Samuel Bartrom, Indiana University School of Medicine, USA

Monty Khela, Creighton University School of Medicine, USA

Vijidha Shree Rajkumar, The University of Sydney, Australia

Christopher J. Kleck, The University of Colorado, USA

Saiganesh Ravikumar, Northwell Health, USA

Peem Sarasombath, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand

Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong, The National University Hospital, Singapore

Shams Albrefkany, Monash Health, Australia

Firas M. Alsebayel, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia

Tran Vu Hoang Duong, Xuyen A General Hospital, Vietnam

Byung C. Yoon, The Stanford University, USA

Pawin Kasempipatchai, Bumrungrad International Hospital, Thailand

Prashant V. Rajan, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, USA

Mitchell K. Ng, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, USA

Jason I. Yang, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, USA

Kevin Mathew, The Keck School of Medicine of USC, USA

Matthew Lindsey, St Louis University Hospital, USA

Olumide Danisa, Duke University Health, USA

Saiuj Bhat, Curtin Medical School, Australia

Samantha Hill, The Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, USA

Kevin G. Liu, The University of Southern California, USA

Cassie Yang, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

Dustin H. Massel, Endeavor Health, USA

Eteesha Rao, Newcastle University, UK

Paarth Patel, The University of Texas Health Science Center, USA

Outstanding Author

Quinn T. Ehlen

Quinn Ehlen was born and raised in Minnesota, where he then attended the University of Minnesota, graduated from Summa Cum Laude with High Distinction with majors in Chemistry and Finance. Upon graduation, he moved to Miami, FL, as an MD/MBA candidate at the Miller School of Medicine/Herbert Business School. He has got involved in both basic science and clinical orthopaedic research. His basic science work largely focuses on sports medicine and the effect of ACL tears on osteoarthritis pathophysiology. His clinical research spans across orthopaedic subspecialties with a variety of projects ranging from joint replacement to spine. In his free time, he loves skiing, floating on a lake, or playing hockey. He is applying to orthopaedic residency and looks forward to continuing his research while developing surgical skills. Connect with Quinn on LinkedIn.

JSS: From your point of view, what authors have to bear in mind during preparation of a paper?

Quinn: While preparing a paper, it is important that authors keep their audience in mind for whatever their target journal may be. When targeting an orthopaedic journal, try to understand what would be of most interest to orthopaedic surgeons and how it might draw their attention.

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

Quinn: I think critical writing comes from a solid understanding of the respective scientific field. When one knows enough about a topic, they are able to synthesize meaningful conclusions, while also questioning claims that may be farfetched. Therefore, one can ensure critical writing through thorough literature review and then novel idea generation, which does not always follow the status quo.

JSS: From an author’s perspective, do you think it is important to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, CONSORT, or PRISMA,) during preparation of manuscripts?

Quinn: Yes, it is important to follow reporting guidelines. These guidelines help standardize scientific literature, which can help researchers draw larger conclusions than individual studies can provide. Aggregating studies such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses offers the highest level of evidence. These studies are much more feasible and comprehensive when following reporting guidelines.

(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)

Takeshi Sasagawa

Dr. Takeshi Sasagawa is the chief spinal surgeon at Toyama Prefectural Central Hospital in Japan. In 2002, he graduated from Kanazawa University and received certification from the Japanese National Board. After certification through 2007, he received training as an orthopaedic surgeon at five different institutes. Between 2007 and 2009, he participated in original research on metastatic tumors localized to the vertebra while under the mentorship of Prof. Tomita, who developed total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal tumors, and Associate Prof. Kawahara at Kanazawa University Hospital. Dr. Sasagawa received his PhD in 2011. From 2009-2012, he worked at the Spine Center, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center in Tokyo. At this institute, he received additional spinal surgical training for degenerative spine disease. Since 2012, he has been employed as a spinal surgeon at Toyama Prefectural Central Hospital and has been involved in clinical research, in particular on spinal trauma.

The quality and depth of a profession is enhanced by experience and academic inquiry. Of all academic inquiries, Dr. Sasagawa considers academic writing to be the most important. In academic writing, researchers read a number of articles to get background information, examine their own approach to an unsolved problem and discuss the results. The process has to be scientific and logical, and not self-indulgent. Through interaction with peer reviewers, universal conclusions can be drawn. It is, to him, a laborious process, yet enables him to develop scientific thinking skills. At the same time, it brings researchers closer to understanding the nature of the problem.

Science advances rapidly day by day. To ensure one’s writing is up-to-date, Dr. Sasagawa believes that it is important to keep questioning one’s own approach to disease. He constantly asks himself, “Does it make sense from diagnosis to treatment?” If there is any doubt, it is clinically important and needs to be investigated. Nowadays, literature from all over the world is easily accessible via the internet. If the issue is one that has not been explored and resolved, research into the issue may provide new insights.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Mohamed Alhantoobi

Dr. Mohamed Alhantoobi is a final-year Neurosurgical resident at McMaster University, Canada. He completed medical school at United Arab Emirates University, UAE, and an MSc in Experimental Surgery and Surgical Education from McGill University. His research interest focuses on spine surgery and surgical education. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Alhantoobi thinks that academic writing encourages critical thinking by requiring writers to evaluate evidence, consider various perspectives, and draw well-reasoned conclusions. This process is foundational to education and research, as it encourages questioning, analysis, and independent judgment.

In Dr. Alhantoobi’s view, good authors should possess several key qualities. They should have the drive to explore and question complex problems, which leads to engaging and original writing. Also, they should be able to gather, analyze, and synthesize information from multiple sources to support arguments with evidence. In addition, being honest, being able to meet deadlines, and maintaining confidentiality and credibility are also essential. Good authors should have the ability to work independently, manage feedback, and adapt writing styles to suit different audiences and purposes.

Dr. Alhantoobi believes balancing research, clinical duties, and writing can be challenging for scientists and doctors. Effective time management strategies include prioritizing key tasks, breaking projects into smaller tasks, leverage collaboration and support. By integrating some of these strategies, doctors can make steady progress on writing projects while attending to their professional responsibilities.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Samuel Bartrom

Samuel Bartrom graduated from IUPUI with a degree in biology, and he is currently a 4^th year medical student at Indiana University School of Medicine in Fort Wayne, IN. He has been involved in clinical orthopedic research since his first year of medical school and has also undertaken smaller projects in other fields. In his free time, he enjoys playing the guitar, relaxing with his family, working out, and spending time outdoors. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Samuel believes a good academic paper starts with a clear research question. The introduction should concisely communicate the background and objective of the paper. Including current literature and knowledge surrounding the topic is crucial to writing a good introduction. The methods should be reproducible, and the results should clearly and effectively convey the findings of the paper. It is important to discuss the findings in the context of existing literature and deliberate on what they mean for the field going forward.

From Samuel’s perspective, it is important for authors to understand the goals and style of scientific writing. Unlike traditional creative writing, it seeks to convey the results of a paper and its implications in a clear and concise manner. The most effective papers are ones that have a clear study design and answer their question succinctly.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Monty Khela

Monty Khela is a fourth-year medical student at Creighton University School of Medicine, currently applying for orthopedic surgery residency. He earned his bachelor’s degree in Biology from Case Western Reserve University. He is currently completing a research fellowship in the Orthopedic Surgery Artificial Intelligence Lab (OSAIL) at the Mayo Clinic, working closely with Dr. Cody Wyles, Dr. Michael Taunton, and Dr. Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo. His research interests include the use of machine learning, predictive analytics, and large databases to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and the effectiveness of treatment in orthopedic surgery. Throughout medical school, he also worked closely with the Spine Division at UCSF under the mentorship of Dr. Ashraf El Naga, Dr. David Gendelberg, and Dr. Lionel Metz. As a team, they have published and presented on novel surgical techniques and outcomes-based research in spinal trauma. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Monty thinks a good academic paper begins with a focused research question that addresses a meaningful gap in the current literature. From the outset, there should be a clear rationale for why the study matters and how it can contribute to clinical understanding or decision-making. Strong papers are built on sound methodology, with careful attention to study design and appropriate analysis techniques. Equally important is how the findings are communicated. A well-written manuscript should place the results in context, highlight the implications for practice, and acknowledge limitations without overstating the conclusions. The discussion should demonstrate not only what was found but why it matters. In the end, a strong academic paper does more than report data; it provides insight and encourages further inquiry.

Monty believes that the preparation of a strong manuscript starts long before the actual writing process begins. Authors should first ensure they thoroughly understand the existing literature, not only to avoid redundancy but also to contextualize their work appropriately. A well-informed background helps define a clear objective and sets realistic expectations for what the study can contribute. Maintaining objectivity throughout the process is essential. Every decision, from data analysis to how results are interpreted, should be approached with a sense of responsibility and awareness of potential bias. This includes actively seeking feedback from co-authors and collaborators who may offer different perspectives. Clear communication within the team strengthens the quality of the final product. Ultimately, the goal is not simply to publish but to provide readers with something they can trust. That means being transparent about limitations and intentional about how claims are supported. Every section of the paper should reflect that level of care.

“What motivates me to write most is the opportunity to engage deeply with clinical questions that don’t have clear answers. Writing allows me to think critically and sharpen ideas in a way that informal discussion doesn’t. It is a way to slow down and really understand the problem you’re trying to solve. That process has become just as valuable to me as the final product. I have come to appreciate how research can have a ripple effect. Even if a project doesn’t immediately change practice, it might provide clarity or lay the groundwork for someone else’s next step. There is a responsibility that comes with writing something others may rely on, and that’s part of what keeps me invested,” says Monty.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Vijidha Shree Rajkumar

Dr. Vijidha Shree Rajkumar is a Neurosurgery Registrar at Sydney Adventist Hospital, possessing a strong academic and clinical background in the neurosciences. She earned her Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Anatomy and Cell Biology from McGill University in Canada, where her Honours research focused on the neurosciences. She continued her studies at McGill, completing a Master of Science in Experimental Surgery with a specialization in Surgical Innovation. She went on to obtain her Doctor of Medicine from the University of Sydney. Currently, she is pursuing a Master of Philosophy there, concentrating on the neurosurgical subspecialty of spine surgery. Her current research centers on the safety and efficacy of prone lateral fusion techniques, findings from which she has presented at several international conferences. Passionate about advancing neurosurgical care, she remains deeply committed to clinical research and innovation, striving to contribute meaningful advancements to the field of neurosurgery.

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

Dr. Rajkumar: A good academic paper always begins with a strong question. To develop this, it is important to conduct a thorough literature review—not only to understand what is already known but more importantly, to identify gaps in current knowledge and clinical needs that warrant investigation. This rigorous groundwork should culminate in a clear and focused thesis statement. My research supervisor wisely advised that the abstract should be composed last. However, drafting an early version can serve as a helpful guide throughout the writing journey, maintaining clarity and structural integrity. A great paper ultimately tells a story and leads the reader through it with coherence and style. Furthermore, I believe the introduction and background sections hold significant weight. A well-written paper should be accessible not only to experts but also to those new to the field, and should provide a clear and informative overview of the topic.

JSS: What do authors have to bear in mind during the preparation of a paper?

Dr. Rajkumar: The abstract is often the first thing readers see, so it needs to be both concise and impactful. It should clearly summarize your work while capturing the reader's interest. Think of a strong abstract as setting the stage for your entire paper. A well-written methodology section is crucial. This allows the wider research community to understand exactly how you conducted your work, enabling them to replicate, validate, and build upon your findings, which is essential for the advancement of knowledge in the field. Finally, I would encourage you to decide on your target journal early in the process. Most journals have specific requirements—checklists, referencing styles, and ethical guidelines—that need to be met before submission. Addressing all these points from the very beginning, from study design to data analysis and writing, can significantly streamline submission and increase the likelihood of acceptance.

JSS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?

Dr. Rajkumar: To all the academic writers dedicated to the pursuit of scientific progress—your efforts do not go unnoticed. From the late nights spent capturing microscopic images to the countless hours conducting clinical research in hospitals, your work is invaluable. We are fortunate to stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, benefiting from the knowledge and resources they helped build. With continued dedication and curiosity, we too can lay the groundwork for future researchers to go beyond. Every thoughtful question, well-reasoned argument, carefully crafted methodology, and rigorously analyzed result contributes to the collective advancement of science and humanity. Curiosity is one of the most powerful gifts we possess—let’s continue to be curious, and let’s keep seeking answers.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Christopher J. Kleck

Dr. Christopher J. Kleck is the Chief of Spine in the Department of Orthopedics at The University of Colorado. He serves as the Assistant Director for Medical Student Education and Associate Residency Program Director in the Department of Orthopedics, and the Spine Fellowship Director. His spine practice has primarily involved the evaluation of adult spinal deformity patients and their outcomes. The Spine Division is currently involved in several studies looking at global alignment, pelvic parameters, and techniques to allow for more precise implementation of surgical plans. His other research interest is spine infection. He has been involved in the development of primary and metastatic spine tumor management, complex spine infection care, and complex spine deformity surgeries. He is an active SRS (Scoliosis Research Society) member and exceptionally gifted surgeon, writer, and speaker. His passion for improving patients’ lives serves as his guiding principle.

From Dr. Kleck’s perspective, academic writing, book chapters, manuscripts, abstracts, and all other forms are a necessary part of the scientific process of medicine. It is important to document what researchers know, and what they are hoping to discover. In medicine, the academic pursuit through research is an opportunity to improve the daily practice of medicine in which we partake. It also provides a means by which they can transfer knowledge in a method that is peer-reviewed from one colleague to the next. His understanding of how to practice medicine has changed in both writing and reading. He adds that the day he becomes stagnant as a physician, no longer learning, changing, and being challenged, is the day he plans to retire.

Dr. Kleck thinks the rate of new publications, and the expansion of topics, specifically in spine surgery, can give new insights to research. There are many resources available, but serving as a reviewer for journals is one effective way to stay current with the ever-growing variety of topics. Although this still offers only a limited view of the research being conducted, it helps broaden one’s understanding through exposure to a diverse range of studies. It has also been important to continue to attend meetings, including international meetings, to understand what is new in the field. Finally, it has been important to partner with researchers in their own institutions who are working in different areas. This has led to work on metal corrosion, infection treatment, tumor treatment, and even informatics and enabling technologies.

Lastly, Dr. Kleck would like to share his views on how to deal with pressure in writing, “First, it is important to remember we stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. Without research, without scientific endeavor, we fail to advance. It is also key to remember that it is not about advancing our own ideas for the sake of notoriety, but the very oath we took to graduate from medical school is for the betterment of people. By advancing research, and improving patient care and outcomes, we are fulfilling our field's call. It is also fun. Patient care, medicine, surgery, and research are all fun. While there is a burden, it is also a privilege and joy. By remembering what first brought us into medicine, we can perform both tasks in a meaningful way.”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Saiganesh Ravikumar

Dr. Saiganesh Ravikumar completed his undergraduate studies in biology and music performance at Emory University. He then obtained his master's in public health at Dartmouth. He attended medical school at the University of Rochester and went on to an anesthesia residency at Northwell Health. He conducts research in various fields, including healthcare disparities, anesthesiology, and surgery.

Dr. Ravikumar thinks a good academic paper needs to focus on the fundamentals of performing research. Every research paper begins with a fundamental research question. This research question should be specific, answerable with available data, and should be narrowed to a specific topic and refined. The data collection process should be rigorous to avoid bias. The data analysis should be rigorous and account for predefined confounders. The interpretation and manuscript writing should be clear and free of assumptions. A good academic paper should also be interpretable by a researcher who is new to the field of your work. It is essential to walk the reader through the research topic, its relevance, and findings in a step-by-step manner in a good academic paper.

Dr. Ravikumar believes the scientific community should always be striving to improve methods to identify and remove bias. He believes there are two primary areas where bias can be introduced in research: one is the data collection, the second is in the analysis, interpretation, and writing of the paper. There are fundamental methods of data collection that can minimize bias, such as randomized samples for a trial, or mentioning and/or accounting for non-response and missing data rates in cross-sectional data. To address potential bias, it is essential to adjust for predefined or "a priori" confounders. Modifying analytic methods after data collection can introduce bias. Finally, in one’s writing, it is important not to make assumptions in their interpretation of data, ensuring conclusions do not extend beyond what the data show.

“Scientific research is intentionally a very rigorous and challenging process. It is important not to be discouraged by this challenge during the research process, but instead to view each challenge as an opportunity to grow and improve as a researcher. It is important during these times to keep the bigger picture in mind and remember the significance of your research in benefiting humanity. Further, it is easy to be discouraged by a lack of statistical significance in your results, but sometimes a lack of statistical significance is actually clinically significant,” says Dr. Ravikumar.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Peem Sarasombath

Dr. Peem Sarasombath is an Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon at Phramongkutklao Hospital and College of Medicine in Bangkok, Thailand. After completing his orthopedic surgery residency and clinical spine fellowship, he further refined his skills through international fellowships in multiple countries. His surgical practice focuses on minimally invasive and endoscopic techniques for complex spinal conditions. In addition to his clinical work, his recent research explores AI-assisted spine surgery, 3D-printed surgical navigation, and advanced endoscopic approaches. He has received multiple international recognitions and is dedicated to advancing surgical precision, improving patient outcomes, and fostering global collaboration. He is also actively involved in mentoring and academic contributions to the spine surgery community, with a continued focus on spinal innovation to improve patients’ quality of life.

In Dr. Sarasombath’s opinion, a good academic paper should tell a clear and meaningful story from start to finish. It begins with identifying a question that truly matters to patients and clinicians, followed by a study design that can answer that question reliably. The writing should be concise yet informative, helping readers easily follow the logic from background to conclusions. Limitations should be presented openly, with a constructive discussion on how they might affect interpretation and what future work could address them. Ultimately, a strong paper leaves readers with practical insights they can apply in their own practice and curiosity to explore further.

Dr. Sarasombath notes that avoiding bias requires mindfulness throughout the entire research process, not just at the writing stage. Authors should start by defining a clear, objective research question and selecting a methodology that limits the influence of personal expectations. Engaging a diverse research team can provide different viewpoints, reducing the risk of one perspective dominating the interpretation. When presenting results, both expected and unexpected findings should be reported with equal attention, and the language should remain neutral and precise. By focusing on transparency and balance, the final manuscript allows readers to form their own informed conclusions.

Lastly, Dr. Sarasombath encourages fellow academic writers to remember that every well-conducted study, regardless of its size, can influence the field and improve patient care. To him, persistence, integrity, and genuine curiosity are key to meaningful research. The path may be challenging, but the opportunity to share knowledge, inspire others, and contribute to scientific progress makes every effort worthwhile.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong

Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong is a Medical Officer currently training in Urology in Singapore at the National University Hospital, Singapore. He grew up in this lovely country, and his passions include a good cup of coffee and rugby. His research interests revolve around education, medical education, and artificial intelligence. He has recently engaged in some research on artificial intelligence and the formation of patient information videos, as well as research on the currently available patient information videos available on social media for general consumption. His future plans would be to pursue Urological surgery as a career. He is intrigued by the vast array of procedures available, ranging from endoscopic work, laparoscopic, open, and even transplant work.

According to Nicholas, a good paper explains things clearly enough that even someone outside the immediate field can follow the reasoning. The science must be rigorous, but it should also convey why the work is significant. Although not mandatory, the work should still be engaging and interesting.

To avoid biases, Nicholas thinks the initial step is to recognize that bias can seep into researchers' minds without their awareness. This is especially true when seeking citations and publications to support a particular argument. He tries to keep an open mind when looking at results and not get too attached to his initial expectations. It also helps to have colleagues review his work; they often point out things he has completely missed. With these in mind, he is less likely to force the results into a neat box.

“I think what is really inspiring is knowing that scientific progress is rarely the work of one big breakthrough, and it is usually the sum of many small, careful contributions over time. The journey of research can be long and dreadful, especially as we pursue this on top of a busy clinical practice, seeing patients, teaching students, and whatnot. As someone still finding my way in research, I am encouraged by how the papers I read often build on work that came years, even decades, before. It is a reminder that even if your study feels like just one small piece, it is still an essential part of the bigger picture. And it is always rewarding to taste the fruits of your hard work along the way, such as presenting at local or international conferences. It is important to realise that work matters, even if its impact is not obvious right away,” says Nicholas.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Shams Albrefkany

Dr. Shams Albrefkany completed her Bachelor of Medical Science and Doctor of Medicine at Monash University, Melbourne, graduating in 2024. She is currently undertaking her internship at Monash Health, where she continues to develop her clinical foundation. She has a strong interest in neurology, nurtured by her involvement in multidisciplinary research across departments of Neurosurgery and Emergency Medicine. It is a great privilege that her first publication, a novel case report on an intramedullary epithelioid malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, has been well received and has fostered meaningful academic discussions. She is eager to build on this experience by contributing further to advancing clinical research and innovation in neurological sciences.

In Dr. Albrefkany’s view, the essential elements of a good academic paper extend beyond intellectual rigour and depth to include clarity and purpose. Clarity involves framing a specific question or hypothesis and presenting ideas in a logical, accessible way, ensuring the paper remains relevant and easy to follow. Purpose – the underlying “why” – is equally important, as it drives the work to be meaningfully innovative and to contribute productively to the academic community. Together, clarity and purpose underpin the quality, impact, and lasting value of an academic paper.

Dr. Albrefkany emphasizes that authors should bear in mind that preparing a paper is an iterative process. Revisions should be seen as constructive opportunities to strengthen clarity, flow, and accuracy, often requiring multiple drafts. It is equally important to maintain open communication with all co-authors to ensure consensus and accuracy before submission. Attention to detail in structure, referencing, and adherence to journal guidelines also plays a crucial role in a smooth review process.

“As a reminder to myself first, I believe it is essential for us as clinicians not to lose sight of the human element in our research. Behind every statistic, clinical finding, or novel diagnosis lies a patient with loved ones and a story. What motivated me while writing my first research paper – and what I hope will continue to inspire me – is the sincere intention to represent and advocate for the patient at the heart of that case,” says Dr. Albrefkany.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Firas M. Alsebayel

Dr. Firas M. Alsebayel is an Orthopedic Resident at National Guard Health Affairs and a graduate of King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Science. He has a great interest in research projects that ensure the advancement and progression of the Orthopedic field. His interest and passion were fostered by his Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which emphasizes positioning the kingdom as a global leader in innovation.

Dr. Alsebayel believes that it is imperative to possess a comprehensive understanding of the current state of scientific research to compose a high-quality academic paper. A thorough literature review serves as an effective tool to achieve this objective. Additionally, well-defined and clear objectives for the study prevent diversions and ensure focus on the primary research goals. Furthermore, collaborating with a team with focused goals facilitates a smooth and efficient process of writing an excellent academic paper.

In Dr. Alsebayel’s opinion, the essential skill set of an author goes well beyond technical writing. At its core, good authorship requires curiosity — the willingness to ask questions that matter and probe beneath the obvious. Equally important is rigor: the discipline to ground ideas in evidence, present data transparently, and withstand the scrutiny of peer review. However, authorship is not just about individual craft; it is also about translation. A strong author can take complex concepts — whether biomechanical, surgical, or methodological — and communicate them in a way that is both accurate and accessible, bridging the gap between science and practice. Finally, he thinks that an author needs resilience. Every manuscript faces critiques, revisions, and sometimes rejection. The ability to see feedback not as a roadblock but as part of the refinement process is what transforms good writing into impactful scholarship. In orthopedic medicine, where research has real consequences for patient care, that blend of curiosity, rigor, translation, and resilience is what makes an author truly effective.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Tran Vu Hoang Duong

Tran Vu Hoang Duong, MD, is the Head of the Neurosurgery Department at Xuyen A General Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He graduated from the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City in 2013 and is currently pursuing a PhD in Neurosurgery at the same institution. His clinical and academic focus is on advanced minimally invasive spine surgery, particularly biportal and uniportal endoscopic techniques, with an emphasis on practical, cost-effective strategies for resource-limited healthcare settings. He was recognized with the Outstanding Young Surgeon Award at the WUBE 2025 Congress in South Korea. His recent publications analyze the application, technical benefits, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic spine surgery within real-world practice environments in Vietnam, contributing to the growing body of evidence supporting the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of endoscopic spine surgery in diverse healthcare systems.

JSS: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Duong: Academic writing plays a critical role in modern medical practice. It compels clarity in indications, systematically documents surgical techniques, reports outcomes and complications transparently, and invites constructive peer discussion. High-quality scientific writing transforms individual surgical experience into transferable knowledge by clearly defining patient selection criteria, outcome measures, and follow-up protocols, allowing others to reproduce or critically evaluate the results. Moreover, it serves as a bridge between clinicians and scientists, accelerating the development of evidence-based guidelines and ultimately improving patient care. For surgeons, meticulous academic writing and manuscript preparation serve as a continuous self-review, offering chances for honest reflection on operative performance and encouraging ongoing, incremental improvements in surgical technique, safety, and outcomes.

JSS: How do you keep your writing current and insightful?

Dr. Duong: In an era of rapidly evolving global knowledge, I maintain a structured and intentional approach to literature review. I regularly review newly published articles and preprints in spine surgery journals, and I closely monitor scientific trends presented at major specialty conferences and through position statements from professional societies. This helps me identify emerging directions in the field as well as gaps in current evidence. In my research, methods are specified with transparent inclusion criteria, clearly defined outcomes, and appropriate effect sizes and analyses. I prioritize the inclusion of datasets, operative videos, and checklists in supplementary materials to support reproducibility. Each manuscript is built around a precise clinical question, highlights how the proposed technique differs from established approaches, and reports outcomes that matter to patients. Visual abstracts and concise figures are used to distill key insights and convey novelty effectively.

JSS: How do you effectively allocate time for writing research papers?

Dr. Duong: As the head of a neurosurgery department, I structure both clinical workflow and research activity into organized, goal-oriented teams. When a research idea emerges, I develop a detailed protocol and assemble collaborators with clearly assigned responsibilities. This research pathway runs in parallel with clinical duties but remains operationally distinct to avoid interference with surgical work. Short, focused team meetings every two weeks help ensure steady progress and timely reflection. Writing is approached deliberately and gradually. I practice “micro-writing,” drafting small sections consistently alongside an ongoing literature review. This approach keeps key concepts fresh and allows continuous refinement. I believe that brief, regular sessions consistently outperform rare, heroic marathons. Manuscript development starts once the protocol is finalized and proceeds in small, structured steps throughout data analysis. This not only distributes workload effectively but also ensures the research question remains alive, updated, and aligned with evolving evidence.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Byung C. Yoon

Dr. Byung Chul Yoon is an Assistant Professor of radiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine and a neuroradiologist at the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System. He obtained his medical degree at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a PhD degree at the University of Cambridge in the UK. He completed a diagnostic radiology residency at Stanford and a neuroradiology fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He has diverse research interests, including spine imaging and intervention. Currently, he is actively involved in a collaborative project to improve ultrasound-based imaging of the spine.

In Dr. Yoon’s opinion, the primary purpose of academic writing is to share knowledge and ignite further discussions and studies. Another important purpose is to record the current knowledge for future generations. There is now a myriad of ways to disseminate knowledge through lectures, videos, audio, etc. What makes academic writing still valuable is that there is something quite deliberate and thoughtful about the process. Creating a final piece of academic writing often requires thorough planning and multiple revisions. It is also common for the writing to be reviewed by multiple individuals before it is published. This helps to distill a large amount of information into more focused and digestible language. It is also more flexible when it comes to data sharing and transfer through various means of communication, whether it be virtual or physical.

Dr. Yoon emphasizes the importance of staying organized when it comes to critical writing. He believes that having a critical mindset is essential for identifying the issues being discussed. Additionally, he highlights the value of diverse perspectives; for example, a neuroradiologist may have a different set of questions and critiques when reading an article about disc herniations compared to a spine surgeon. He also encourages being open-minded about sharing one's writing and receiving feedback, as he believes that this practice can be very beneficial.

“I took a course in college where we had to read a lengthy book each week and write a critical piece on it in just one page. This forced me to digest a large amount of information quickly, evaluate it critically, and write my thoughts concisely. My professor would then go through every single word in the writing to see if it needed to be there. It was an eye-opening experience because I realized that a substantial portion of my writing was filled with extraneous words and phrases that served no purpose. I also realized how much more one could communicate by being concise, direct, and organized,” says Dr. Yoon.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Pawin Kasempipatchai

Dr. Pawin Kasempipatchai is a spine orthopaedic surgeon at Bumrungrad International Hospital, specializing in minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery, including fusion procedures and uniportal endoscopic techniques. His research centers on developing innovative surgical methods that reduce pain and promote faster recovery for patients. One of his recent projects, Intraoperative erector spinae plane block guided by O-arm navigation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a novel technique, integrates O-arm navigation with advanced pain management to improve surgical outcomes. He is also deeply interested in advancing endoscopic spine surgery to enhance both patient care and surgical precision.

In Dr. Kasempipatchai’s opinion, the most difficult part of academic writing is often developing a clear rationale for findings. Authors should start with an idea they know well in their field, keeping the patient at the center of every consideration. Begin by asking “why,” as the reasoning behind a question can reveal hidden insights that guide the entire research process.

To prepare a writing, Dr. Kasempipatchai recommends starting with the project that truly inspires oneself, as genuine interest will drive motivation and quality. Everyone has their own rhythm, and it is essential to respect leisure time, as moments of rest often spark new ideas and clarity. To maintain progress on tasks that must be completed, such as writing, set clear, achievable goals with deadlines. For example, authors can decide which section of the research they will finish in the first one to two weeks. This structured approach balances creativity, productivity, and well-being, enabling consistent advancement while preserving mental freshness.

According to Dr. Kasempipatchai, following established reporting guidelines such as STROBE, PRISMA, and CARE is essential for producing high-quality research. These frameworks are carefully developed, tested, and refined to ensure clarity, transparency, and reproducibility in scientific writing. They provide a step-by-step structure that helps authors organize their work effectively, avoid unnecessary revisions, and save time during manuscript preparation. Adhering to these guidelines not only streamlines the process but also increases the credibility and impact of the research, making it more valuable for the scientific community and practical application.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Prashant V. Rajan

Prashant V. Rajan, MD, is a fellowship-trained orthopaedic spine surgeon based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and serves as Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He earned his MD with honors from Harvard Medical School and completed his orthopaedic surgery residency at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, followed by a spine fellowship at Emory University School of Medicine. His clinical expertise spans cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine surgery, including minimally invasive and motion-preservation techniques. In his research, he has authored over 30 papers and chapters. His recent projects focus on cost-effectiveness, decision analysis, and clinical outcomes in spine surgery.

Dr. Rajan believes that academic writing is important because it allows scholars to communicate complex ideas clearly, accurately, and with evidence. It creates a shared, credible record of knowledge that others can verify, build on, or challenge. Through this process, academic writing drives progress in every field and helps develop critical thinking skills in both writers and readers.

In Dr. Rajan’s view, an author should possess the ability to communicate ideas effectively, organize concepts and knowledge, and have strong critical thinking skills. They must also be curious and disciplined, willing to research thoroughly and revise their work thoughtfully. Creativity, attention to detail, and an openness to feedback further strengthen an author’s ability to produce meaningful and impactful writing.

Dr. Rajan highlights that data sharing is crucial in scientific writing because it increases transparency, allows others to verify results, and strengthens trust in research. When data are accessible and easily analysable, other scientists can replicate studies, build on findings, or identify errors, which accelerates scientific progress. It also reduces duplication of effort and maximizes the value of research funding and participant contributions. Overall, data sharing supports a more open, collaborative, and reliable scientific community.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Mitchell K. Ng

Dr. Mitchell Ng is currently a fellow in orthopaedic spine surgery at the Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, PA. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, majoring in molecular biology and graduating with honors. He received his M.D. from Case Western School of Medicine, graduating with honors in research. He completed his residency in orthopaedic surgery at Maimonides Medical Center, a level 1 trauma center and the largest hospital in Brooklyn, NY. Appointed research chief at Maimonides, he has authored over 160 peer-reviewed manuscripts, 400+ podiums/abstracts, and 5 textbook chapters. He actively serves as a reviewer for The Spine Journal, Spine, Journal of Spine Surgery, and World Neurosurgery and is on the editorial board for Frontiers in Surgery and Journal of Clinical Medicine. He is a member of AO Spine and has a particular research interest in outcomes following spine trauma, motion preservation, and robotics/navigation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Ng’s view, academic writing is the foundation of scientific progress. It allows discoveries to move from the operating room or laboratory into the shared knowledge base of the field. In medicine, and especially in spine surgery, it is how innovation becomes reproducible and reliable. Writing forces clarity of thought, requiring one to justify conclusions with data and logic. It connects clinicians and researchers worldwide, enabling collective advancement instead of isolated progress.

Dr. Ng always stays current by trying to stay as active as possible. Before writing, he reviews recent publications and analyzes how new data align with what he is seeing in practice. He collaborates with colleagues leading different aspects of spine research, including biomechanics, robotics, and motion preservation. He hopes to not just summarize what is known, but to interpret new findings to guide where he believes the field should go next.

“Writing is an extension of patient care. A well-conducted study or well-written paper can impact thousands of patients I may never meet. It is satisfying to contribute to the collective understanding of complex problems that doctors face in surgery every day. Academic writing is both reflection and legacy, forcing one to think critically about one’s own results, and hopefully leaving behind something useful for other surgeons and their patients,” says Dr. Ng.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Jason I. Yang

Jason I. Yang is a fifth-year orthopedic resident at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree at Columbia University in Biology. He then pursued a short career as a professional hip-hop dancer in San Francisco. He subsequently completed medical school at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, where he stayed for orthopedic residency. He will be continuing his training with a fellowship in spine surgery at UC San Diego next year. He is personally interested in the advancement of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of degenerative and traumatic spinal pathologies as well as in the design of implants that improve motion preservation.

In Dr. Yang’s view, a good academic paper starts by asking the right questions. A comprehensive review of the existing literature inevitably uncovers gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Therefore, he believes that a strong research paper begins with broad observations that lead to insightful questions, which are then explored through rigorous investigation. A thoughtful methodology that clearly defines primary and secondary outcomes provides clarity to the collected data. The interpretation of this data should offer a new and unique perspective that either challenges or reinforces existing knowledge in a significant way, with a clear pathway to clinical relevance.

Dr. Yang emphasizes that it is important to be extremely thoughtful when developing a methodology that accurately evaluates the outcomes in question. However, it is also important not to be afraid of trial and error and to recognize that the best way forward may be to just get started, even if every element is not perfectly figured out. The investigative process may result in more questions than answers, which should hopefully generate more questions and fuel more research.

Dr. Yang believes that contributing important information to a continually expanding body of knowledge, which others can build upon, is both rewarding and humbling, whether it is a case report, a meta-analysis, a biomechanical study, or a prospective trial. The scientific process of developing a novel question and then devising a plan to answer it is translatable to all aspects of life, and learning how to obtain data and synthesize information is an invaluable skill that serves as the fundamental process behind progress. Honing this skill and advancing the potential for human ingenuity through increased knowledge are what make the sometimes tedious aspects of academic writing well worth it. 

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Kevin Mathew

Kevin Mathew is a second-year medical student at the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles, California. Prior to entering medical school, he earned his bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from the University of Southern California. His research centers on improving functional recovery and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes for orthopedic patients. He collaborates closely with orthopedic surgeons and rehabilitation experts at the USC Spine Center and the USC Hand Center. He is a member of RECODE-DCM, a global research initiative aimed at accelerating research and improving outcomes for patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM). He collaborates with researchers globally through the Perioperative Rehabilitation Incubator to enhance non-operative management of DCM. After completing medical school, he intends to pursue residency training in orthopaedic surgery. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Kevin considers a strong academic paper to address a meaningful question clearly and reproducibly. Honesty is paramount to high-quality academic research, and the manner in which the findings are obtained and reported is often more important than the findings themselves. This is because no paper exists in a vacuum; every article should be constructed to be built upon in the future. He also believes that many scientific questions cannot be answered by one paper alone. From this perspective, a good academic paper acknowledges its scope and how it contributes to answering the broader question at hand. The ultimate findings of a paper, regardless of its scope, are outside of the scientists’ control. Therefore, a good academic paper should be defined by the quality of its research question and methodology rather than the findings observed.

In Kevin’s experience, bias often develops when one becomes overly attached to a particular narrative or hypothesis. In these situations, researchers can find themselves attempting to make the data fit into a pre-existing narrative rather than objectively reporting their findings. With the modern pressure of publication, the incentive to produce a self-contained narrative can be quite strong; however, science is not often straightforward, and it is critical to report findings honestly for others to build on in the future. To this end, he suggests all authors follow proper reporting guidelines whenever possible, such as the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews or STROBE for observational studies. These guidelines help hold authors accountable by ensuring they are reporting their findings in an impartial and consistent manner, thereby reducing the risk of bias.

“Science is inherently challenging, as the complexity of the world around us knows no bounds. However, no researcher stands alone in this pursuit, and the advancement of scientific progress is a global effort. Even when progress feels slow, each and every finding uncovers new realms of exploration. Scientific progress often occurs gradually in the background, with very few discoveries capturing the mainstream spotlight. In reality, every major breakthrough arises from thousands of smaller discoveries that have led up to that point, and I commend those who devote themselves to driving this constant engine of progress. I encourage scientists to recognize the significance of their work; nothing defines our modern world more than the scientific advancements we have made in the name of human curiosity. No matter the magnitude of one’s achievements, every scientist around the world is working to create a brighter future,” says Kevin.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Matthew Lindsey

Matthew Lindsey, MD, is a clinical instructor for The Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills for the United States Air Force and an Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at St Louis University Hospital. He was fortunate to train at HCORP in Boston and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. He is interested in the latest advancements in spine surgery, including endoscopic techniques, robotic systems, and motion preservation strategies. He is also interested in excellent clinical care through innovative post-operative pain management. His primary area of interest is developing personalized best practices for each patient.

Dr. Lindsey argues that a strong paper starts with a relevant clinical question and a well-defined research plan focused on a clear hypothesis. The important principle here is that authors start with a question, and then the data will follow. A lot of research starts the opposite way, with the data first, and then someone asks, “What can I make out of this?” It is research in reverse, and it is more prevalent than we want it to be. Next, the methods should reflect the measurement that gives real meaning. Many times, a study starts with a good idea only to be dismantled by methods that do not match the clinical questions. Lastly, a good study has a limited and focused discussion without extrapolation. The tendency is to over-generalize the results to situations where it is not appropriate. He is not breaking any new ground here, but adherence to good principles leads to good research.

Dr. Lindsey emphasizes that being skeptical of oneself can help avoid biases in writing. It is important to anticipate one’s own shortcomings, which often involves listening to others—even when that means hearing things we might not want to hear, especially from people whose opinions we may not value. The key to overcoming this challenge is humility.

“Good studies are hard to do, and most of the time, the work does not seem to justify the reward. It is hard not to get lost in the pursuit of accolades. Furthermore, there is so much hard work that goes unseen and unheralded. The message is to keep doing principle-led, hypothesis-based research, even if it does not look like it is going to make a huge difference,” says Dr. Lindsey.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Olumide Danisa

Dr. Olumide Danisa is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Duke University Health and the Duke University School of Medicine. He holds a joint appointment as an Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurological Surgery in the Division of Spine Surgery at Duke Health. Before joining Duke, he served as the Vice Chairman of Orthopaedic Surgery at Loma Linda University and held the position of Chief of the Spine Surgery Division. While at Loma Linda, he was appointed by the Dean of the School of Medicine as the Alfred Neufeld Endowed Chair of Orthopaedic Research. Despite his transition to Duke, he continues to hold an adjunct appointment at Loma Linda University both in the Orthopaedic Surgery Department and in the School of Medicine. With over two decades of clinical experience, his practice focuses on complex spine disorders of the cervical and lumbar spine, adult spinal deformity, and revision spine surgery. He is also experienced in treating metastatic spine disease. Over the past 15 years, as his academic career has matured, he has been increasingly passionate about many disciplines of Orthopaedic research. His research interests focus on the application of artificial intelligence in spinal surgery, as well as studying the impact of social determinants of health on spinal outcomes.

Dr. Danisa defines a good research paper as one that has a clear focus, presents a straightforward and novel concept, draws rational conclusions supported by data or statistical methods, and includes a concise discussion. He believes in conducting a thorough review of existing literature, utilizing platforms such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Open Evidence platform to explore both current and historical studies. He also emphasizes the importance of attending meetings where significant research is presented, even before publication, and collaborating with surgical stakeholders at other institutions while actively engaging with them.

“The most important part of academic writing is the ‘table read’ where my team assembles and we have open and frank discussion about a concept, how to execute it, and how to delegate individual roles in its production. No egos, just a room or a ZOOM meeting of 15-20 people of varying ages, experience, titles all working toward one goal without hierarchy. Regardless of harsh critiques or overwhelming agreement, we are working as one. It is a very fulfilling experience,” says Dr. Danisa.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Saiuj Bhat

Dr. Saiuj Bhat is a doctor working as a trainee in family medicine in Perth, Western Australia. He is interested in research that has the potential to impact a broad segment of the population, with particular interest in public health and the use of emerging technology in medicine. He is also passionate about the concepts of “food is medicine” and “exercise is medicine,” which are reflected in his previous research projects. He currently teaches at Curtin Medical School in Perth, aiming to inspire the next generation of doctors with his passion for academic medicine. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JSS: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Dr. Bhat: What I love about academic writing is that it turns curiosity into knowledge. It sits at the intersection of discovery and discipline: ideas must be original, yet expressed within strict conventions that prioritise clarity, evidence, and accountability. This forces authors to sharpen their thinking—arguments must be precise and referenced, assumptions explicit and based on scientific credibility, and claims defensible. Academic writing is also cumulative and dialogic. Each paper builds on prior work while inviting critique and refinement. This gives writing a temporal depth: a well-constructed argument can influence thinking years or decades later. Additionally, academic writing is methodological storytelling. Data, theory, and analysis are arranged not just to report findings, but to persuade readers that the conclusions are warranted and feasible. Finally, its global reach is striking. Work written in one context can shape practice, policy, or further research across disciplines and continents.

JSS: Can you provide tips for selecting appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis? What should authors keep in mind during this process?

Dr. Bhat: Evidence synthesis in academic writing begins with a clearly defined research question, as this determines what evidence is relevant. In the case of systematic reviews, a focused question influences the types of studies to be reviewed and included. Authors should prioritise sources that are methodologically rigorous, peer-reviewed, and directly aligned with the study’s scope, while being transparent about inclusion and exclusion criteria. With regards to synthesising evidence in a systematic review, it is very important to assess the risk of bias of included studies and assess the strength of evidence using established and reproducible tools. Authors must consider study heterogeneity rather than treating all evidence as equivalent. Differences in design, populations, outcomes, and context should be explicitly acknowledged and, where possible, analysed rather than averaged away. Selective citation should be avoided; contradictory or null findings are as important as supportive ones for balanced interpretation. Authors should also be alert to publication bias, outdated evidence, and conflicts of interest in source studies. Throughout the process, transparency in search strategy, appraisal methods, and analytical decisions is essential, as it enables readers to assess the robustness, limitations, and credibility of the evidence.

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

Dr. Bhat: Absolutely! Disclosure of COI is essential for academic authors. Transparent COI reporting allows readers, reviewers, and editors to assess the independence, credibility, and potential sources of bias in a study. Disclosure does not imply misconduct; rather, it supports research integrity by making relevant relationships, which may be financial, professional, or personal, explicit and open to scrutiny. The influence of a COI on research can range from negligible to substantial, depending on its nature and management. Financial COIs, for example, have been associated with selective outcome reporting, framing of conclusions, and publication bias, particularly in industry-sponsored research. Non-financial COIs, such as intellectual or academic allegiances, may also shape study design, data interpretation, and emphasis of findings. Importantly, the presence of a COI does not invalidate research per se, but failure to disclose it undermines trust and can compromise the perceived validity of the work. This is more important than ever in the modern age of increasingly available misinformation.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Samantha Hill

Samantha Hill is a medical student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, planning on applying to Orthopaedic Surgery. Her research focuses on clinical outcomes and perioperative physiology in orthopaedic patients. She is currently working with Alpine Orthopaedic and Spine on a project examining anaesthesia interventions, coagulation laboratory timing, perioperative coagulopathy, and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing multi-level lumbar fusion. Previously, she was a Helen Lemieux research intern at Shriners Children’s Hospital in Spokane, where her work focused on pre- and postoperative gait mechanics and functional outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction for patellar instability. Her academic interests include orthopaedic outcomes research, surgical optimization, and improving functional recovery in both pediatric and adult patient populations.

In Samantha’s view, academic writing is important because it allows ideas, data, and clinical experiences to be shared in a clear and structured way so others can learn from them and build on them. It does more than present results — it explains the reasoning, process, and limitations behind a study, which helps ensure transparency and reproducibility. Strong academic writing helps turn individual observations into meaningful contributions that can improve patient care and guide future research. It also encourages critical thinking and scientific rigor within a field. Without it, important findings could be misunderstood, overlooked, or difficult to apply. Overall, academic writing is how research becomes part of the larger conversation that moves medicine forward.

To keep her writing critical, Samantha tries to think from the reader’s perspective and focus on the main takeaways rather than getting lost in unnecessary detail. It is important to explain why the research matters, what it adds to existing literature, and where its limitations are. She usually starts with a bullet-point outline, so the writing has a clear structure, purpose, and direction. This helps keep the discussion focused and grounded in evidence instead of drifting into filler and fluff. She also tries to continually ask what the findings actually mean and how they contribute to deeper understanding or practice.

“One of the most meaningful experiences I have had with academic writing was working on my first full manuscript. Taking a project from the early idea stage, through data collection and analysis, and into writing was both challenging and rewarding. Translating complex data into a coherent message that contributes to a broader understanding required much more revision and reflection than I initially expected. Although the manuscript is still in revision, I feel a strong sense of accomplishment seeing the project come together from start to finish. That experience strengthened my understanding of the writing process and reinforced my appreciation of academic medicine. It showed me how thoughtful writing shapes not only how research is understood, but also the impact it can have,” says Samantha.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Kevin G. Liu

Kevin G. Liu is currently a fourth-year medical student at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California. His main research interests are postoperative spine biomechanics and synthetic material use in spine surgery. In addition, he has led clinical studies in other areas of neurosurgery, including skull base surgery. He is currently involved in research on cervical spine anatomy in surgical contexts as well as studies in postoperative spinopelvic motion.

In Kevin’s view, academic writing allows authors to disseminate evidence-based information in a high-quality manner. In the current age, the amount of existing information has been exponentially increasing. At the same time, accessing this collective information is much easier than it was only a few decades ago, with a single computer or smartphone capable of displaying a virtually infinite library of knowledge. However, this overwhelming explosion of information and access has led to growing uncertainties about what is factual and what is not. As such, high-quality academic writing is now more important than ever for providing trusted, scientific knowledge to all levels of society.

Kevin believes that authors have a duty to produce accurate writing that most effectively communicates findings to their audience, and this duty also requires that they hold their peers to this same standard. The peer-review process is an invaluable aspect of academic writing, ensuring journals remain as credible resources in their respective fields. As an author, it is crucial to embrace the peer-review process with an open mind for improvement as opposed to viewing it as nothing more than a barrier to publication. It is important to remember that reviewers and commenters are not aiming to shame or disparage them, but rather to help them in creating works that best add to the landscape of knowledge.

“I find that creating frameworks and storyboards before beginning a manuscript allows me to more easily re-engage with writing when I do find time available in my day. In my experience, a major barrier to actually putting words on a page is the uncertainty surrounding where to go next in the paper. Using an actively updating storyboard while writing has allowed me to quickly remember my thought processes from my previous session, making it more likely that I will make progress when I end up finding time again. In this way, I consider it less as finding more time to write, but rather using existing time more effectively,” says Kevin.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Cassie Yang

Dr. Cassie Yang is currently an orthopaedic resident, undergoing her training within SingHealth, Singapore’s largest public healthcare cluster. She completed her MBBS at the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, a joint degree program between Nanyang Technological University and Imperial College London. She has a broad research background spanning multiple subspecialties, including shoulder surgery, arthroplasty, and spine. Her primary academic focus is in spine surgery, centering on translating everyday clinical challenges into structured research questions, with the goal of generating practical, data-driven solutions that enhance efficiency, safety, and value-driven care. She is particularly interested in how thoughtful systems design and evidence-based protocols can reduce variability and elevate standards across institutions. As a trainee, she views research not as a parallel pursuit but as an integral part of surgical development—one that cultivates critical thinking, intellectual humility, and a deeper appreciation for the complexity of spine care.

Dr. Yang takes the view that academic writing is the architecture through which scientific knowledge becomes durable and transferable. It transforms observations and data derived from the scientific method into structured, peer-reviewed narratives that can be scrutinized, replicated, and built upon. In daily clinical work, many of the decisions researchers make are shaped—often invisibly—by the cumulative weight of prior publications. Writing, therefore, is not merely documentation; it is the medium through which knowledge gains legitimacy and continuity. It enables dialogue across institutions, countries, and disciplines, allowing a spine surgeon in one setting to learn from outcomes or innovations developed elsewhere. Importantly, the discipline of writing also sharpens thinking. The process of articulating a hypothesis, defending the methodology, and contextualizing the findings compels a deeper understanding. Ultimately, academic writing helps them refine workflows, improve efficiency, and elevate patient care through shared and critically examined knowledge.

Dr. Yang believes that staying informed requires intentional involvement in the field. She prioritizes regular attendance at regional and international conferences, where emerging data and evolving surgical philosophies are often discussed before formal publication. Whenever appropriate, she tries to critically evaluate studies instead of simply accepting their conclusions at face value, especially when they relate to uncertainties in her clinical practice. Mentorship also plays a central role; discussions with senior surgeons and researchers often provide insight that is not apparent in print, oftentimes from anecdotal experiences or prior discussions with other experts. Informal academic dialogue—whether through collaborative projects or professional networks—further let her expose to innovations and shifting paradigms. In her writing, she aims to not only summarize new information but also to contextualize it within clinical realities. The goal is not simply to be current, but to offer perspective—identifying gaps, questioning assumptions, and proposing directions that meaningfully advance spine care.

“The most enduring motivation is the belief that thoughtful inquiry can tangibly improve patient lives. Every dataset represents individuals who entrusted us with their care, and publishing our findings is, in a sense, an extension of that responsibility. The process of research also satisfies intellectual curiosity—it allows me to ask why we do things the way we do, and how else we can do them better. Contributing, no matter how modestly, to the collective body of knowledge feels like participating in a larger, intergenerational effort to advance medicine. Academic work also fosters meaningful connections; engaging with colleagues from different backgrounds and philosophical perspectives broadens one’s thinking and tempers dogmatism. Ultimately, writing is demanding but deeply rewarding—it refines clinical judgment, cultivates humility, and reinforces the principle that progress in surgery depends not only on the individual’s technical skill, but on shared knowledge and continual reflection,” says Dr. Yang.

(by Sasa Zhu, Masaki Lo)

Dustin H. Massel

Dr. Dustin H. Massel is a fellowship-trained, board-certified, orthopaedic surgeon specializing in minimally invasive Spine Surgery at Endeavor Health / NorthShore University Health System in Chicago, IL. He completed his fellowship training at Rush University Medical Center affiliated with Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, following an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital and earned his medical degree from the University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine. He specializes in minimally invasive and motion-preserving spine surgery, incorporating advanced technologies, including navigation and augmented reality, to enhance precision and recovery. His research focuses on clinical outcomes in minimally invasive spine surgery, value-based care delivery, cost optimization, and refinement of cervical and lumbar surgical techniques to advance clinical knowledge and improve recovery. He is committed to patient education, shared decision-making, individualized treatment planning, and advancing spine surgery through research, innovation, and thoughtful integration of emerging technologies. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Massel’s view, academic writing is fascinating because it transforms individual experiences into shared knowledge and understanding of complex problems. Every day, researchers make complex surgical decisions based on their reasoned experience-based clinical assessment. Academic writing forces them to slow down, examine their assumptions, and ask whether their outcomes reflect proper decision making, surgical skill, bias, system design, or chance. Academic writing, just like surgical techniques, is a refinement of skill. The organization of data, the synthesis of concise thoughts, responding to peer reviews, and defending methodologies all enhance clinical judgment. It allows one institution’s experience to inform global practice, reducing variation and improving care beyond a single operating room.

Dr. Massel highlights the need to stay up-to-date for improved patient outcomes and advancements in care. He remains current through regular review of certain publications, participating in multidisciplinary discussion groups at his hospital and nationally, and attending specialty-specific international conferences with his interests in focus.

Dr. Massel believes that reporting guidelines serve as safeguards against bias and omissions. In surgery, differences in techniques, patient selection, and follow-up can significantly impact outcomes; thus, transparency is vital. Research guidelines force authors to simplify complex methodologies to a common language, clarify inclusion criteria, define endpoints precisely, and disclose limitations. This protects readers from overinterpretation and protects authors from unintentionally overstating conclusions.

(by Sasa Zhu, Masaki Lo)

Eteesha Rao

Eteesha Rao is a final-year medical student at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. She has completed her Master’s degree in Cardiothoracic Surgery with distinction from Newcastle University. Her interests include spinal surgery and cardiovascular sciences, with projects and publications in these areas.

In Eteesha’s view, academic writing enables localized ideas to become part of a wider conversation. It turns personal insight into shared, testable knowledge. Without it, research would stay isolated. It encourages clarity, requiring authors to explain not only their thoughts but also the reasons behind them and the evidence supporting those views. In fields such as science and medicine, academic writing plays a crucial role in shaping practices, policies, and future research. Promoting systematic knowledge growth is more important than relying on opinion or authority.

Eteesha thinks that an author requires curiosity and the drive to ask meaningful questions, coupled with the discipline and critical thinking to test those questions properly. Integrity is essential for reporting results honestly, including limitations, even when they are inconvenient. Good authors are clear communicators and respect the reader’s time, avoiding unnecessary complexity. Additionally, resilience is important because peer review can be difficult, and progress typically comes from revisions.

Eteesha believes that sharing data enhances transparency and reproducibility, which in turn strengthens trust in research. It also prevents unnecessary duplication and allows others to explore new questions using existing datasets. That said, data sharing must be handled carefully, especially in clinical research where confidentiality and consent are central. With proper anonymization and governance, the benefits outweigh the risks. Ultimately, data sharing supports collaboration and makes research a collective effort rather than an isolated one.

(by Sasa Zhu, Masaki Lo)

Paarth Patel

Paarth Patel is a medical student at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio pursuing a career in neurosurgery. His academic work focuses on the technical aspects of neurosurgery and surgical education through case reports and operative videos. His recent projects explore complex pathology and practical technical strategies aimed at improving clinical and surgical decision-making. Through academic writing, he aims to translate real-world experience into concise educational resources for trainees and surgeons.

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

Paarth: When I read a paper, I want to understand how the authors were thinking in real time — what problem they saw, what options they considered, and why they chose one approach over another. A good paper is structured around that decision-making process rather than just a list of results. The introduction should frame a clear clinical question, the case or data should be presented in a way that is easy to follow, and the discussion should reflect honestly on what worked, what didn’t, and what remains uncertain. Strong figures and concise writing make a big difference because they allow the readers to grasp the key points quickly. For me, the most valuable papers are the ones that change how you think about a clinical scenario the next time you see something similar.

JSS: What authors have to bear in mind during the preparation of a paper?

Paarth: I believe writing begins long before opening a blank document. Try to become deeply familiar with your research topic before writing a single word. Keeping organized notes, imaging, and key operative details early makes the manuscript much easier to shape later. I also think authors should be intentional about what they want the paper to do for the readers—teach a decision point, clarify a technique, or frame a clinical problem—and then remove anything that distracts from that goal. During preparation, the literature review isn’t just background; it’s where you refine your own thinking and identify what truly matters. Getting feedback early is invaluable because it highlights what may be unclear to someone outside the project. Learning from mentors is equally crucial in sharpening both clinical and writing skills. Finally, enjoy the process; the best research often comes from the projects you genuinely enjoy.

JSS: Would you like to share some encouraging words for other academic writers who are dedicated to advancing scientific progress?

Paarth: When I first started writing, I thought every project had to be perfect, and that mindset made it harder to begin. My biggest advice is to just start — the pieces will slowly fall into place. What helps me most is treating each manuscript as an opportunity to learn how to think and communicate more clearly. Revisions and rejections are normal, and many papers become stronger because of them. If you stay consistent, you build momentum, and your writing improves faster than you expect. Do not underestimate the value of your contributions; explaining a detailed study, difficult decision, or a new technique in a clear, honest way can genuinely help someone else. That is what it is all about. Keep going, keep asking good questions, and let the process compound over time.

(by Sasa Zhu, Masaki Lo)