In 2025, many TBCR 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)

Hideaki Takahashi, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Japan

Rachel J. Perry, Yale University School of Medicine, USA

Mangesh A. Thorat, Queen Mary University of London, UK

Délio Marques Conde, Federal University of Goiás, Brazil

Sarah Fennelly, St Vincent’s University Hospital, Ireland

Pablo Mandó, The Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas, Argentina

Outstanding Author

Hideaki Takahashi

Hideaki Takahashi, MD, is a neurosurgeon at the Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Japan. He is engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of central nervous system complications at the Cancer Center, such as metastatic brain tumors and Trousseau syndrome. After 20 years of research in malignant brain tumors, particularly hyperthermia treatment of malignant gliomas, at the Brain Reaserch Institute of Niigata University, he moved to his current position at the Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, where he has been treating metastatic brain tumors for the past 20 years. In particular, the diagnosis and treatment of meningeal carcinomatosis has become his life's work. Recently, he has also been focusing on central nervous system complications of molecular targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors and treating these conditions.

TBCR: What do you regard as a good academic paper?

Dr. Takahashi: There is no such thing as superiority or inferiority in medical research. In particular, if the premise of the research is to help with treatment decision-making in clinical practice or to widely educate people that a different way of looking at things has a positive effect on treatment, even if the paper only applies to a portion of the cases, it cannot be considered an inferior paper. If it has some kind of impact on even one person, it is a sufficiently excellent paper. Of course, since it is an academic paper, if there are any points that should be checked, such as a lack of ethics, the existence of a conflict of interest, unreliable data, or bias, then it is out of the question. This is not a matter of the superiority or inferiority of academic papers, but a violation of the rules of paper writing. Furthermore, papers that are logically immature or lacking clarity may appear inferior to papers that are not, but this can be revised by reviewers or editors, and is not a matter of superiority or inferiority of research. There have been many cases in the past where a single case report has left an impact on future generations. There is no way that a systematic review written by someone who has never seen a breast cancer patient can be superior to a case report written by a doctor who has seen and helped many patients. I hope that many people will write original and "excellent" academic papers that follow the rules.

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

Dr. Takahashi: Until recently, the most difficult obstacles were research design and statistical processing, but these days, with the emergence of medical statisticians and experience in clinical trials, these obstacles are becoming easier to overcome. On the other hand, regardless of the changing times, it can be difficult to search through literature to find out whether the research is unique or whether there are any existing reports. The next step is to write a logical document, which is a difficult task and must be conveyed in your own words. Although it is becoming possible to use AI to search for literature and compose texts these days, writing that is not unique does not resonate with people and violates the rules. For people who do not speak English as their native language, the language barrier is naturally a difficult obstacle, but I think that if the research is accurate and the logic is well organized, it is not a big problem.

TBCR: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Dr. Takahashi: My specialty is the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors, and I am often asked by breast surgeons for my opinion on image interpretation and treatment plans. I feel a great sense of euphoria and accomplishment when I can use my skills to explain things and help them solve their problems and make treatment decisions. A paper is a tool that can have some kind of impact on unexpected readers in some country around the world, and since it can contribute even a small part to the development of medicine, it is something that many researchers aim for. Furthermore, by continuing to write papers, there is also the secondary result of improving one's own logical thinking. I would like young researchers and students to take on the challenge, but unless they master the clinical questions that arise from examining patients carefully, they will not realize the appeal of this, and I do not want them to just collect titles.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Rachel J. Perry

Rachel J. Perry is an Associate Professor in Medicine/Endocrinology and Cellular & Molecular Physiology at the Yale University School of Medicine. The Perry laboratory focuses on applying stable isotope tracer methods to understand obesity- and insulin-associated alterations in metabolic flux pathways. Her team has recently identified hyperinsulinemia-induced increases in tumor glucose uptake and oxidation as a critical driver of colon cancer in two mouse models of the disease, and mitochondrial uncoupling as a potential therapeutic strategy against the disease, and went on to show that responsiveness to insulin is a metabolic signature of obesity-associated tumor types in vitro. Current work in the Perry lab expands upon these themes to study the intersection between systemic metabolism and immunometabolism in cancer as well as in sepsis and exercise. Connect with Dr. Perry on LinkedIn and X.

TBCR: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Perry: Science communication is critical: if we are not communicating (via writing) our results to the public, there’s basically no point to doing this science!

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

Dr. Perry: We have to approach writing like any other tasks as a human: we need to think about what we’re writing about, and be honest with our impressions. Scientific writing is challenging because we are in a community of scientists who are all moving toward uncovering truth, so our responsibility is to explore any questions or concerns we have. I know this is easier said than done!

TBCR: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?

Dr. Perry: IRBs are in place to ensure that research is ethical, and this is CRITICAL to conducting any sort of research. As scientists, we feel a strong ethical mandate to conduct research in an ethical way, so approval from regulatory bodies including IRBs is necessary to ensure that we are fulfilling this moral mandate.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Mangesh A. Thorat

Dr. Mangesh Thorat currently serves as an Honorary Reader at Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, and the Clinical Lead, Breast Surgery & Consultant Oncoplastic Breast Surgeon, Homerton University Hospital, London. He is an oncoplastic breast surgeon based in London, UK and his research primarily focuses on cancer prevention. His cancer prevention research is underpinned by three main strands of work. The first of these is cancer epidemiology with a focus on drug repurposing, for example, Aspirin. The second strand involves early detection and prognostic biomarkers, with a special focus on DCIS. And the third strand is cancer prevention / early detection clinical trials, with a special focus on breast cancer prevention. He serves on steering committees of multiple international cancer prevention societies and multiple multinational cancer prevention trials. Learn more about Dr. Thorat here, and follow him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Thorat’s view, a skilled author is able to critically evaluate existing evidence and pay attention to rigorous methodology in one’s own work. S/he has a strong restraint in drawing inferences that data do not support and demonstrates absolute commitment to make active efforts to avoid confirmation bias and to not cherry-pick evidence.

To avoid biases in one’s writing, Dr. Thorat suggests “AAA” – “Acknowledge” bias exists, “Adhere” to rigorous methodology, and “Approach” evidence in a systematic manner. He explains, “The first step is to acknowledge biases exist. For example, as stated above – confirmation bias that then leads to presentation of cherry-picked evidence that supports author’s own data. In terms of interpretation of one’s own data, always start with pre-specified analysis plan, adhere to rigorous methodology that incorporates appropriate adjustments for multiple testing, use of multivariate/adjusted models and reporting of adjusted effect sizes as primary metrics. When it comes to putting one’s own data in the context of existing evidence in literature, always start with a systematic search. Identify all applicable studies. From these, identify the ones which do not concur with one’s own data and write discussion of these first as it is more important to discuss the reasons for differences and to eliminate the possibility of confirmation and selection (cherry-picking) biases.”

“I am motivated to write by the desire to present new data with research or clinical practice implications and also to provide perspective,” says Dr. Thorat.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Délio Marques Conde

Délio Marques Conde, MD, PhD, is a Breast Surgeon and Professor at the Federal University of Goiás (Universidade Federal de Goiás), School of Medicine, Goiás, Brazil. He is involved in the study of various aspects of breast cancer, including its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. For 25 years, he has been teaching medical students and residents in Breast Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Gynecologic Oncology. He is a reviewer for several journals. For the past eight years, he has focused on researching hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancers and the Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Technological advances, including next-generation sequencing, are allowing for the increasing identification of carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes. One challenge is facilitating access to germline testing, identifying the main variants in the local population. It is necessary to increase diversity in genomic studies, expanding the representation of populations from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Connect with him on LinkedIn and X.

From Dr. Conde’s perspective, those who dedicate themselves to writing in the health field must keep in mind that all research should contribute to improving health conditions. Authors should ask themselves: What is the impact of this research on people's health? How might this change clinical practice? In this sense, it is necessary to follow scientific rigor and be attentive to the latest evidence in the literature. An author needs to be willing to read extensively, investigate, and know how to translate knowledge in a didactic way. An author should never lose their curiosity and critical spirit.

According to Dr. Conde, minimizing bias risk starts with strong research design, including an extensive literature review to incorporate relevant variables. Key strategies include randomization (when feasible), blinding participants and researchers in intervention studies, and ensuring transparency and rigor in participant handling, data collection, and analysis. Authors should use multivariate analyses to adjust for confounders, and publish negative results to reduce publication bias. They should adopt these approaches based on the study's nature.

“Academic writing demands a great deal of time and dedication. Science is made up of discoveries that accumulate over time. These discoveries need to reach everyone. Knowledge needs to be shared, and the most effective way to do this is by writing,” says Dr. Conde.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Sarah Fennelly

Dr. Sarah Fennelly is a junior doctor on the RCSI Core Surgical Training Programme at St Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. She has previously worked as a General Surgery registrar at the Northern Hospital in Melbourne, Australia and has completed a Masters in Cancer Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Her interest is in surgical oncology. She is currently investigating rates of in-breast tumour recurrence after wide local excision and radiotherapy for primary treatment to determine whether these recurrences can be safely treated with repeat breast conserving surgery instead of completion mastectomy. She is also investigating rates of margin positivity in breast conserving surgery and mastectomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and how these affect future recurrence risk. She will present these findings at the European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona and the American Society of Breast Surgery Annual Conference in Seattle in 2026. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Fennelly: Academic writing can be challenging, particularly when working in a non-research focused clinical role. Starting from a blank page is always difficult, but one of the benefits of academic writing over other types of writing is that there is always a clear format to follow. You don’t necessarily have to start at the very beginning, and it can be easier to begin with methodology or results and then go back to the introduction later. The process of arriving at your research goals is often lengthy, with input from lots of different people. It can be difficult to translate this clearly into the academic format. It can also be challenging to convey the findings in a way that reflects the individual research goals of everyone in the research team. However, combining the perspectives of my research colleagues has often been the step of the project where I gain the most valuable insight into the topic.   

TBCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?

Dr. Fennelly: Finding the time to produce quality research can be difficult when working in a full time clinical role. I have been lucky to work in really supportive units both in Australia and Ireland. There has been so much support and guidance through every step, from conceiving the project idea to applying for ethics approval to submitting for journal publication. I personally find the best way to keep momentum is to work to deadlines and communicate these clearly with the research team. It is important to be aware of all the different tasks to be done (data collection, data analysis, writing up various sections of ethics applications and journal submissions) and determine which ones can be delegated and which parts need to be done by the lead author.

TBCR: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Dr. Fennelly: Academic writing challenges me to critically analyse the latest research, which allows me to optimise the care I can offer to my patients. For me, the most fascinating part is the opportunities that it brings to learn from more experienced researchers. I have learned so much from ethics committees, co-authors and journal editors about how to optimise study design, minimise risk to patients and maximise generalisability so that my findings have the best chance of increasing the quality of patient care. As I begin my surgical training, I am looking forward to the many challenges and opportunities that academic writing provides.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Pablo Mandó

Dr. Pablo Mandó is a Medical Oncologist at the Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he is a member of the Breast and Gynecologic Oncology Unit. He is also an Assistant Professor and the Medical Oncology Fellowship Coordinator at the CEMIC University Institute. A graduate with honors from his medical school, he completed his oncology training at the Alexander Fleming Institute. His research focuses on breast cancer and real-world data. He is a board member of the Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Editor in Chief of its journal Oncologia Clínica, and a co-founder of the SUMA National Cooperative Group for Breast Cancer.

Dr. Mandó considers an effective academic paper one that poses a relevant and focused question, then answers it with methodological rigor and transparency. It should contribute meaningful knowledge to the field, whether by confirming a hypothesis, challenging current dogma, or providing valuable real-world data that can inform clinical practice. Crucially, a good paper is clearly and concisely written, making its findings accessible to a broad audience. Ultimately, its quality is measured by its ability to advance patient care or spark new, impactful research.

Dr. Mandó emphasizes that authors must bear in mind the "so what?" factor, ensuring their message is novel and significant for their target audience. The narrative must be coherent, with a logical flow from the introduction to the discussion, and all conclusions must be firmly supported by the data presented. Authors have an ethical duty to report their findings honestly, including limitations, and to properly acknowledge all contributions. A multidisciplinary perspective, considering the clinical, statistical, and translational implications, is also key to a robust manuscript.

“My primary motivation is the potential for academic work to directly improve the lives of patients. In a field that evolves as rapidly as oncology, writing allows me to synthesize complex information, share insights from our local context in Argentina, and contribute to the global effort against cancer. Furthermore, it is a form of intellectual growth and collaboration. The process of writing with colleagues, like those in the SUMA group, fosters a community of learning and drives me to refine my own understanding and practice continuously,” says Dr. Mandó.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)