In 2025, many authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as authors. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

Outstanding Authors (2025)

Alberto Parente, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Spain

Megan H. Hicks, Wake Forest University, USA

Outstanding Author

Alberto Parente

Alberto Parente, PhD, is a consultant in Paediatric Surgery and Paediatric Urology at Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain. His areas of interest include endourology and robotic surgery, of which he is Proctor for Spain and Portugal. Connect with him on Instagram.

In Dr. Parente’s opinion, a good academic paper must be written following several rules. First, it must be based on a reasonable hypothesis. Sometimes statistics can be misused to justify the unjustifiable. Second, it must have a correct method, well explained and without biases that may alter the results. Lastly, it must be useful for the clinical or experimental researchers who read the paper.

According to Dr. Parente, the most commonly encountered difficulty in academic writing is the use of academic language, which is different from the common language we use with friends or family. This includes statistical language, which many doctors are not used to. Likewise, the importance of using the exact words to convey the results of the study or knowledge is paramount.

“The most exciting thing in academic writing is being able to help another person, no matter how far away they are. Our knowledge, although small, can help others make progress in solving a problem. It can also be used to compare the symptoms of a disease with those of another patient, or to open a line of research or stimulate an idea in another part of the world,” says Dr. Parente.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Megan H. Hicks

Dr. Megan Hicks is an Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology and a cardiothoracic and critical care anesthesiologist at Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center. She is active in medical education, serving as Associate Program Director of the critical care medicine fellowship. Her research focuses on continuous vital sign monitoring via wearable medical devices, specifically glucose monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

The way Dr. Hicks sees it, academic writing is quintessential to the effective communication of research findings, guidelines, and reference material. Specifically, in medicine, this comprises “the evidence” on which researchers base clinical decision-making and is truly a foundational component of the practice of medicine.

In Dr. Hicks’ opinion, thoughtful, accurate, and reliable writing is absolutely essential to effective dissemination of medical information. Each publication written is a potential primary reference material for additional reviews and studies and thus even the smallest overstatement or misinterpretation could be magnified greatly. As such, she believes it is imperative that academic writers strive to construct the most accurate and true representation of what the data or literature demonstrates. This also mandates strict adherence to ethical research principles as well as scrupulous review by both the writers and qualified peers at all phases of publication.

From Dr. Hicks’ perspective, critical review of research plans and project conduct is imperative for the generation of accurate and replicable data. The institutional review board (IRB) is a reliable construct present in all research institutions which systematically reviews all proposed research to ascertain adherence to ethical research principles, comply with applicable regulations and policies, and importantly, protect human subjects, while also maintaining oversight throughout studies to ensure adherence. Omission of the IRB review process introduces the risk for bias, unreliable data collection, and other unethical or dangerous practices, which make resultant research fraught with concerns regarding reliability and applicability.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)