In 2025, many CDT 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.

Outstanding Authors (2025)

Inga Voges, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

Martin Teraa, The University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands

Dexter Yak Seng Chan, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore

Takashi Nagasaka, Gunma University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Japan

Aloke V. Finn, CVPath Institute, USA

Álvaro Gamarra, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Spain

Amélie Paquin, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Canada

Motoki Komori, The University of Osaka, Japan

Sebastian Freilinger, Technical University of Munich, Germany

Aleksandra Tuleja, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland

Kristian Rivera, The Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital in Lleida

Helena Dreher, German Heart Center Munich, Germany

Todd A. Laffaye, Mayo Clinic, USA

Alexey Dubensky, V.A. Negovsky Research Institute of General Resuscitation, Russian Federation

Daniel Raskin, Cleveland Clinic, USA

Outstanding Author

Inga Voges

Dr. Inga Voges works at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel in Germany. Her research areas are single ventricle patients and cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference values. Her recent projects are the long-term outcome of hypoplastic left heart syndrome and cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference values for ventricular volumes and function parameters.

Dr. Voges thinks academic work is not only important for expanding and disseminating knowledge but also for promoting communication within scientific circles and initiating debates. It also helps to develop ideas for future academic work. Academic writing is characterized by its verifiability and comprehensibility, which enables different views and findings to be weighed against each other.

According to Dr. Voges, an author should have a good overview of the existing literature. This helps considerably in structuring the scientific work and communicating the knowledge. However, she believes it is particularly important to enjoy writing, to be motivated to deal with the topic, and to have perseverance.

In Dr. Voges’s view, data sharing, despite often being impossible due to data protection regulations, can spark collaborations and enhance knowledge through follow-up studies. Additionally, it can foster trust in research by promoting transparency, which in turn can elevate the value of a scientific study.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Martin Teraa

Dr. Martin Teraa works as a vascular surgeon at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. His clinical focus is on aortic pathology and peripheral artery disease (PAD) and (endovascular) treatment of these disease entities. His research focuses align with his clinical work and aims to improve medical and (endovascular) surgical management of PAD and aortic disease in the setting of large registry studies and clinical trials. Furthermore, he is involved in several committees that aim to improve the treatment of vascular disease and foster international collaboration, such as the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines steering committee and the European Vascular Research Collaborative (EVRC). Additionally, he is involved in the editorial boards of the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (EJVES), the EJVES Vascular Forum, and Annals of Vascular Surgery.

CDT: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Teraa: Academic writing is a means to enable the exchange of scientific knowledge in a quickly developing field such as vascular and endovascular surgery. Innovations and technical advances evolve quickly and scientific journals are indispensable in order to keep up with these developments. Furthermore, it plays an important role in giving young researchers a chance to display their work, share ideas and experiences with peers, and stimulate (international) collaborations.

CDT: Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?

Dr. Teraa: Even when performing original research, it is essential to have good knowledge of the research within a certain field, also to identify potential gaps in scientific knowledge. In my roles in EJVES and the ESVS guidelines steering committee, evidence synthesis is a relevant topic and key in providing evidence-based treatment recommendations in guidelines. A frequent issue encountered in evidence synthesis is the lack of adequate and homogeneous definitions of outcomes or standardization of therapeutic interventions. This underlines the importance of defining reporting standards in (vascular) surgical research, such as those recently published in EJVES. Adhering to such reporting standards (or ones alike) supports future evidence synthesis. Furthermore, it is relevant when evidence is systematically reported or meta-analyzed that you adhere to well-accepted methods, such as PRISMA guidelines and GRADE methodology, use appropriate quality assessment instruments, and ideally, preregister a project in, for instance, a registry like PROSPERO.

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

Dr. Teraa: As a clinical researcher, you have the obligation, especially in clinical research, to use research data as optimally and efficiently as possible. Research is often (partially) funded by public money and you therefore not only have an obligation towards patients participating in research but also towards society and the scientific community. On the other hand, I think a researcher should be appropriately acknowledged for his or her contribution to science and medical knowledge. But if the latter is adequately guaranteed, re-use of research data will spark further collaboration, speed-up clinical developments, and support insights into pathology, risk identification, and optimization of therapeutic strategies. In the end, researchers and medical science, but above all patients will benefit from sharing of data. It should be easier to share pseudonymized data between centers and countries, and existing hurdles should be reduced. Researchers generally aim to conduct scientific research according to good clinical practice guidelines.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Dexter Yak Seng Chan

Dexter Chan is a General and Vascular Surgeon at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. With 28 publications, his research areas focus on peripheral vascular disease and diabetic limb salvage. He has also published in the impact of venous diseases and dialysis access salvage. He is currently undertaking a fellowship at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.

In Dr. Chan’s opinion, an author should have a keen interest in real-world problems related to one’s practice and should always be on the lookout for practical and innovative solutions to issues. To him, academic writing requires the ability to deliver a consistent and methodical argument when answering a clinical question. Reading widely is a prerequisite in preparation as an author for it allows one to shape his/her writing style that is deliverable to the scientific audience. This also allows one to ensure that what one writes will be sensible and complete. Then, anything written needs to be checked multiple times and with multiple sources to ensure that any piece is thorough and correct. Next, he believes the writings need to be succinct and pertinent. Being concise keeps the reader’s attention and ensures that the article stays on course. Finally, one needs to be ever critical of his/her work to continuously improve and to be open to the feedback of others. He thinks that one should never be afraid of failures and keep writing to progress.

Besides reading widely to first understand what the inherent biases are already present in one’s work, Dr. Chan points out that one needs to repeatedly critique one’s work. As no research is fully perfect, in preparation of the discussion, one needs to consider where research may have fallen short, leading to a biased outcome or summary. Getting co-authors or even colleagues to read through can provide an objective lens to one’s writing. This is where teamwork comes into play. Finally, structuring the discussion to account for differing results and opinions may present a more balanced and holistic writing.

“There are several unanswered scientific questions. Every now and then, an opportunity arises for me to answer one of these questions, either because new research has been carried out, or a new technology addresses a specific need. These moments spur me to write. I derive joy whenever I am able to make a small contribution to the greater community. In addition, I do have a keen interest in engaging with fellow like-minded researchers. Through collaboration, I hope we can help improve clinical practice,” says Dr. Chan.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Takashi Nagasaka

Takashi Nagasaka, MD, PhD, currently works as an Assistant Professor at Gunma University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Japan. In 2022, he served as a Visiting Postdoctoral Scientist at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, where he conducted extensive research on structural heart disease, resulting in multiple publications. His specialties include coronary intervention and interventions for structural heart disease (SHD). Additionally, he has expertise in advanced imaging techniques, especially CT-based assessments for procedures such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER), and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), which form the current focus of his research. Connect with Dr. Nagasaka on X @nagasakat222.

Dr. Nagasaka regards a good academic paper as one that addresses a clear, relevant research question through rigorous methodology, provides insightful analysis supported by solid evidence, and communicates its findings in a concise and understandable manner. It should offer originality, contributing meaningfully to existing knowledge, and have implications that can influence clinical practice or guide future research directions. Most importantly, a good paper should spark intellectual excitement—it should inspire curiosity and motivate further exploration.

The most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, in Dr. Nagasaka’s view, include formulating a clear and testable hypothesis, designing rigorous methodologies appropriate for the research question, and accurately interpreting complex statistical analyses. In addition, generating novel ideas and thoughtfully considering how those ideas may contribute to future clinical practice are both essential and particularly challenging aspects of the writing process.

“Academic writing allows me to systematically explore and address clinical questions encountered in daily practice. Writing papers not only helps solve these clinical uncertainties but also continuously encourages me to critically evaluate my diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, ensuring I progress and improve as a clinician,” says Dr. Nagasaka.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Aloke V. Finn

Dr. Aloke V. Finn, currently serves as the President and Chief Scientific Officer of the CVPath Institute, an independent non-profit organization in Gaithersburg, dedicated to the study of cardiovascular diseases. He also serves as a Clinical Professor at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. He directs a basic and translational research laboratory funded by grants from industry, the NIH and other charitable foundations. Dr. Finn is an interventional cardiologist whose primary research interest over the past 15 years has been in the areas of human atherosclerosis as well as mechanisms of cardiac and vascular injury after vascular devices. He obtained his medical degree from Vanderbilt University and did his medical and research training at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed research articles, editorials, and reviews. He has received numerous awards for his research. Connect with Dr. Finn on X and LinkedIn.

According to Dr. Finn, a good academic paper needs to be clearly written, simple to understand and have important and novel insights into whatever the subject matter is. He adds, “Some of the best papers leave the readers asking many more questions about the subject. Obviously, it goes without saying reproducibility and rigor in experimental methods that need to be there as well.”

In Dr. Finn’s opinion, when constructing a paper, authors have to bear in mind the message they are trying to communicate to the audience and whether their data support that message. They should further consider whether the readers can easily understand their main message and why their findings are important to the field.

“I publish in CDT because it is an excellent journal with good readership and reputation,” says Dr. Finn.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Álvaro Gamarra

Dr. Álvaro Luis Gamarra Lobato is a highly trained medical professional with a comprehensive background in cardiology. He completed his undergraduate medical studies at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, where he developed a strong foundation in clinical practice. He completed his residency in cardiology at Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (Madrid), focusing on clinical cardiology and heart failure. He then pursued a Master's in Imaging Diagnosis in Cardiology at Universidad Católica de San Antonio de Murcia, further honing his expertise. Dr. Gamarra has been involved in significant research studies in the field of heart failure and the clinical application of imaging diagnostic techniques in recent years. His recently published literature review aims to make the published knowledge on this topic accessible and highlight areas where further research is needed.

To ensure one’s writing is critical, Dr. Gamarra reckons that it is essential to maintain an analytical approach, evaluating the strengths and limitations of both the existing literature as well as one's own findings. A critical perspective involves presenting evidence in a balanced way, while clearly acknowledging potential biases, methodological constraints, and alternative explanations. It also requires comparing and contrasting different viewpoints and recognizing gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Criticism should be directed not only at the limitations of prior research but also the implications of one’s own findings within the broader context of the field.

Dr. Gamarra also stresses that it is crucial for authors to disclose any potential Conflict of Interests (COIs) transparently. This disclosure ensures that readers can assess the potential for bias in the research, which is important for maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. COIs may influence the interpretation or presentation of findings. In cardiovascular research, where drug trials, medical device testing, and funding sources are often involved, failing to disclose a COI could undermine trust in the results. While a COI does not inherently invalidate the research, it is important to critically examine the data and conclusions with an understanding of the potential influences.

“My motivation for academic writing in the field of cardiology is driven by a deep commitment to improving patient care and advancing scientific knowledge. Whether publishing original research or writing review articles, the primary goal is to provide evidence-based insights that can influence clinical practice, inform treatment strategies, and enhance patient outcomes,” says Dr. Gamarra, “Review articles, in particular, play a crucial role in synthesizing existing knowledge, identifying trends, and highlighting areas that require further investigation, which helps direct the future course of research. Disseminating new findings, as well as consolidating and critiquing existing literature, fosters collaboration among peers, which is essential for refining ideas and strengthening the collective understanding of cardiovascular health. Additionally, the personal fulfillment of knowing that one’s work contributes to shaping medical practice, policy, and the broader scientific discourse is a powerful motivator. Academic writing is also an opportunity to engage in critical thinking, continuous learning, and the pursuit of excellence, all of which are essential for remaining at the forefront of medical science.”

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Amélie Paquin

Amélie Paquin is a cardiologist and clinician-scientist in the Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation at the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute (Quebec, Canada). She was previously trained in Women's Cardiovascular Health at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute (Ontario, Canada) and at the Barbra Streisand Women's Heart Centre Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute (California, United States). Her research focus is the development of cardiovascular diseases in women and the impact of cardiometabolic health.

In Dr. Paquin’s view, academic writing is essential for knowledge sharing. The distribution of research results helps foster new ideas and consolidate knowledge to move science forward.

Dr. Paquin believes that academic writing can be critical if the writers have an adequate understanding of the current data, being able to contextualize their results within these data, as well as an understanding of the limitations of their methods.

In addition, Dr. Paquin emphasizes that the application for institutional review board (IRB) approval is of utmost importance to ensure protection of research participants as well as animal models. It also ensures that the research process and/or its results do not negatively impact the wider community.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Motoki Komori

Dr. Motoki Komori is affiliated with the Department of Paediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Centre. He moved from the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center to The University of Osaka this June. His research areas are pediatric cardiac surgery, pediatric mechanical circulatory support, pediatric heart failure, heart transplantation, congenital heart disease, and adult congenital heart disease. Recently, he has been trying to establish a new registry regarding mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation in Japan and to plan the participation of Japan in the current global registry data to improve the outcome of treatment for severe heart failure in children. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Komori thinks that academic writing has at least two important roles. First, it is an "education tool". The process of academic writing requires each author to have additional knowledge in detail and a deep understanding in order to get approval for a manuscript under rigid peer review and revisions from several reviewers who are familiar with the field. Each author is studying each topic deeply during this process. Second, it is a "communication tool". Academic writing makes it possible to share the author's private experience with all over the world through the journal, and in contrast, people all over the world can also get information whenever they need it. This global communication leads to the improvement of the outcome of each treatment.

Dr. Komori often participates in global annual conferences to gain the latest information and connect with professionals in various fields. In his opinion, the more meetings with specialists or colleagues in various fields, the more experience one gains in a shorter time.. In addition, he does not hesitate to join several conferences outside his own field because there are sometimes unexpected chances to get new insights from totally different fields.

“Academic writing requires significant time and effort, so it is essential for me to receive benefits that justify this work to keep my motivation high.However, there are various types of benefits, from those available in a short duration to those taking long duration. First, I usually try to gather small benefits in a short duration. For example, I can participate in a global annual meeting, or I can improve my knowledge and recognition of each field. Then, these several small benefits could lead to one big benefit, which improves the treatment outcome of patients all over the world. This is my motivation for academic writing,” says Dr. Komori.

(Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Sebastian Freilinger

Dr. Sebastian Freilinger is a public health scientist and postdoctoral researcher at the Chair of Preventive Pediatrics, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich (TUM). He has a multidisciplinary background in epidemiology, health sciences, economics, and prevention. His research focuses on psychosocial and health services aspects of congenital heart disease, including quality of life, mental health, and risk perception. He has also led studies on physical activity and low-cost biomarkers, such as handgrip strength, pulse-wave analysis, and bioimpedance, as predictors of health outcomes. His work is shifting toward preventive sports and health science, with a particular interest in “active living” as a scalable strategy to improve population health. He contributes to national and international research initiatives in cardiovascular epidemiology, sports, mental health, and applied biostatistics, with a broader aim of strengthening evidence-based prevention and early risk stratification across the life course. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Freilinger thinks that academic writing is essential for making research visible, comprehensible, and reproducible. He sees it as his responsibility to transform individual findings into collective and actionable knowledge. This is especially vital in public health, where scientific evidence should inform both policy decisions and practical interventions. Therefore, clear, precise, and methodologically sound writing is essential to ensure that research findings effectively impact the real world.

In Dr. Freilinger’s view, strong academic authors are clear and critical thinkers who embrace new ideas and welcome constructive feedback. They are committed to methodological integrity and willing to revise their work multiple times to improve clarity and precision. While patience and persistence are essential, humility is equally vital: science is a cumulative, collaborative endeavour, and no single paper offers the definitive answer. Hierarchical thinking has no place in this process - what matters is contribution, not academic rank.

“I consider writing papers a privilege and passion to contribute to advances in knowledge and public health as a scientist. However, writing often competes with other responsibilities, such as clinical duties, teaching, project management, and administrative work,” says Dr. Freilinger, “I personally plan regular time slots and divide the tasks into manageable steps. Also, sharing writing responsibilities within a multidisciplinary team helps to spread the workload and enriches the manuscript with diverse perspectives. Beyond personal strategies, however, there are other important structural challenges: the pressure to publish frequently, the heavy emphasis on metrics, the limited support for early career researchers, and the lack of protected time for deep thinking. These systemic problems foster rushed publications and fragmented results, also known as ‘salami-slicing’. The academic world should prioritize depth, collaboration, and meaningful contributions over pure output. Such a shift would not only reduce the workload burden but also enhance the integrity and impact of scientific work.”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Aleksandra Tuleja

Aleksandra Tuleja, MD, is a Consultant of Interventional Angiology in the Swiss Cardiovascular Center, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. She is a physician with comprehensive clinical training in internal medicine and angiology, gained through positions in high-volume clinics in Germany and Switzerland. In her research, she focused on vascular malformations, their phenotypes, clinical classifications, and interventional treatment options. Since April 2024, she has been training as an interventional angiologist at the Interdisciplinary Centre of Interventions at the University Hospital of Bern, where she is developing expertise in a wide range of techniques, including the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), treatment of thrombosis, embolization procedures, and interventions for vascular liver disease. Her primary aim is to achieve excellence in the performance of a wide range of endovascular procedures, whilst also advancing research in the field. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

From Dr. Tuleja’s perspective, as both a clinician and a researcher, a good academic paper should meet several key criteria. First, it should address an important and clearly formulated research question, preferably one with direct clinical relevance. Second, it must employ robust methodology and rigorous statistical analysis conducted to a professional standard. She considers it equally important that studies be published regardless of whether their results are positive, negative, or neutral, as all outcomes contribute meaningfully to the body of scientific knowledge. Finally, the discussion should thoroughly interpret the findings in light of existing evidence. It should offer a clear and critical evaluation of their significance while highlighting how these findings enhance our understanding, inform clinical practice, or influence future research directions in the medical field.

Dr. Tuleja believes that avoiding bias in academic writing begins with being aware of its potential sources. It is important to discuss results with both statisticians and clinicians to gain diverse perspectives and ensure accurate interpretation. Particular care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting findings—for example, implying meaningful results where there is substantial statistical uncertainty—or engaging in excessive post hoc analyses when results are inconclusive. Above all, researchers should resist the temptation to interpret data in a way that aligns with personal expectations or desired outcomes, and instead present the results as they are, supported only by the evidence.

“I would like to encourage all academic writers to take the time to step back from the momentum and pressure of the ‘publish or perish’ culture. It is worth pausing to reflect on what truly deserves to be published, aiming to produce articles one would value in the literature. By focusing on quality, relevance, and integrity, we can ensure that our work genuinely contributes to scientific progress and benefits the wider community,” says Dr. Tuleja.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Kristian Rivera

Dr. Kristian Rivera works as an interventional cardiologist at the Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital in Lleida, Spain. His research focuses primarily on vascular access, with a particular interest in distal radial access and the integration of ultrasound guidance to improve procedural safety and success. He is also actively involved in research related to coronary physiology, contributing to a deeper understanding of lesion-specific treatment strategies. In addition to his academic work, he is dedicated to the treatment of chronic total occlusions and implantation of transcatheter aortic valves.

In Dr. Rivera’s view, a good academic paper can clearly define a relevant question, apply rigorous methodology, and deliver results that are both reproducible and meaningful. Beyond technical quality, he believes a strong paper provides clinical or scientific insight that shifts the reader’s understanding, practice, or research direction. It should be logically structured, transparent in its limitations, and contribute to cumulative knowledge, whether by confirming prior evidence, challenging assumptions, or opening new avenues for exploration.

According to Dr. Rivera, avoiding bias begins with intellectual humility and a commitment to objectivity. Authors should approach their topic with an open mind, acknowledge uncertainties, and report findings regardless of whether they align with expectations or hypotheses. Methodologically, this involves the use of appropriate controls, prespecified endpoints, and appropriate statistical analyses. In writing, it is crucial to present the data clearly, avoid overstating conclusions, and cite a balanced selection of the literature, even if some studies challenge one’s findings. Peer review and internal critique prior to submission can also help uncover unconscious bias.

“Science progresses because of those who persist, despite long hours, rejections, and the often invisible nature of their contribution. Every study, whether positive or negative, adds to a larger mosaic of understanding. Publishing is not just about success; it is about service to patients, colleagues, and future researchers. Keep writing, continue refining, and trust that your work matters. We are all part of a collective effort to move medicine forward,” says Dr. Rivera.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Helena Dreher

Helena Dreher, M.Sc., is a sports and health scientist and PhD candidate at the Department of Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology, TUM University Hospital, German Heart Center Munich. Her research primarily focuses on congenital heart disease, with a particular emphasis on aortopathies. She is especially interested in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying these conditions and in developing improved diagnostic and monitoring approaches. Through her work, she aims to contribute to the optimization of patient care and long-term health outcomes in individuals with congenital heart disease. Connect with Dr. Dreher on LinkedIn.

To write critically, Dr. Dreher indicates that it is essential to actively engage with existing literature rather than merely accepting it. This involves questioning the evidence presented, identifying potential biases, considering alternative perspectives and situating arguments within the broader academic discourse. Moreover, authors should present their own arguments objectively, support them with solid evidence, and also address counterarguments. Further, critical writing should acknowledge the limitations of the evidence and conclusions presented and highlight areas where further research may be needed.

Dr. Dreher further highlights the importance of Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure to provide transparency of the researcher’s relationship to their own work and whether there may have been any potential external influences. In her opinion, a COI could affect research by reducing the objectivity in the interpretation or presentation of data. Disclosing COIs helps readers critically assess the findings and maintain trust in the scientific process.

“Writing scientific papers requires a lot of time and effort, yet I'm motivated by the opportunity to gain deeper insights into a field that I'm genuinely passionate about. At the same time, I find it rewarding to know that the results of my research may offer valuable benefits to the patients and can contribute to improving their care,” says Dr. Dreher.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Todd A. Laffaye

Todd A. Laffaye is an M.D. candidate and emerging clinician-researcher at the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine. His current research focuses on cardiovascular outcomes, transcatheter valvular interventions, and the evolving role of artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing. He is particularly interested in the application of artificial intelligence to patient care and in advancing its safe, transparent, and equitable integration into evidence-based clinical practice.

In Todd’s view, strong authors stand out through meticulous work and confident humility. To him, meticulousness means staying open to change in the dynamic research process—rigid thinking harms science and patients. Robust methodology paired with ongoing critical scrutiny ensures high-quality, transparent, reproducible data. As an early-career researcher, he has benefited from knowing his strengths and limits while actively seeking feedback. Moving forward, he believes success requires embracing the reality that knowledge is always incomplete and evolving.

Bias in one’s writing, as opposed to bias in study design, can be difficult to identify and avoid. To minimize bias in one’s writing, Todd highlights that it is essential to intentionally use a neutral tone and to be careful to avoid overinterpretation of results or causal claims beyond the study design.

“It is a privilege to contribute to published work that informs patient care and supports evidence-based clinical practice. I am motivated to do so in order to become the most well-informed physician possible for my future patients,” says Todd.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Alexey Dubensky

Alexey Yuryevich Dubensky is an anesthesiologist-resuscitator at the N.I. Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center and a research fellow at the V.A. Negovsky Research Institute of General Resuscitation. His research focuses on hypoxia in critical care, specifically investigating the role of microcirculatory disorders in the development of multiple organ failure during conditions like hemorrhagic shock, septic shock, and post-resuscitation disease.

In Dr. Dubensky’ opinion, the main challenge in academic writing is finding the right balance between clarity and complexity while maintaining an appropriate level of formality. His personal difficulty is a tendency toward excessive procrastination, which can only be overcome through consistent willpower.

“A sense of satisfaction comes from the work accomplished when the result resonates with the community. Furthermore, academic writing trains your thinking, helping you to analyze and generate new ideas in the process. Completing a difficult text brings particular satisfaction, creating a sense of intellectual accomplishment,” says Dr. Dubensky.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Daniel Raskin

Daniel Raskin, MD, has recently begun a clinical fellowship in Interventional Radiology at the Cleveland Clinic and continues collaborative research at the intersection of vascular imaging and endovascular treatment. He completed his medical and postgraduate training in Europe and Israel. Previously, he served as attending faculty in interventional radiology at Sheba Medical Center, where he was involved in interdisciplinary care for vascular patients and focused on academic clinical work. His research centers on diagnosis and management in vascular disease and on delivering care efficiently. He focuses on peripheral artery disease, aortic disease, and dialysis access. Recent projects examine imaging selection and timing, procedural planning, and the cost-effectiveness of endovascular strategies, including the practical integration of IVUS, photon-counting CT, and AI-assisted imaging into clinical workflows. His work is centered on making imaging and interventions more clinically useful, measurable, and scalable to improve patient care.

Dr. Raskin believes that a meaningful academic paper centers on a relevant problem and provides insights that extend beyond the written page. Sound study design and clear reporting are essential, but impact comes from asking the right question and presenting results in a way that informs real decisions. He thinks that a study should be judged by its contribution. Even focused work, with limited cohorts, can shape patient management when it addresses a concrete clinical uncertainty. Equally important is how the work is positioned: aligning the message with the journal’s audience and being clear about how the findings contribute helps research resonate and endure.

Dr. Raskin regards the key skill of an author as judgment. That includes knowing which questions are worth asking, how to design a study that fits the question, and how far the data can reasonably be taken. Authorship fundamentally involves sharing experiences with colleagues in a structured and honest manner, transforming one’s practice into observations from which others can learn. This also requires clarity in writing, acceptance of uncertainty, and openness to critique. It is less about style or publication volume and more about contributing something useful to the field.

“During one project, a single early case shaped how we approached similar patients afterwards. What we learned from that experience led us to refine our assessment and management strategy, which then informed care for subsequent patients. Over time, that approach became more structured and ultimately formed the basis of a formal protocol. Just before the work was published, that patient passed away. With the family’s support, the work was dedicated to him, and they expressed genuine appreciation that his experience contributed to improving care for others. It was a powerful reminder that even focused clinical observations can have a lasting impact beyond a single case,” says Dr. Raskin.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)