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

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)