In 2024, many ALES 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 (2024)

Melody Feng, Western Health, Australia

Karen M. Doersch, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA

J. Joshua Smith, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA

Wendy S. Li, Indiana University, USA

Judy Li, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA

Ishfaq Bhat, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA

Outstanding Author

Melody Feng

Melody Feng is a recent graduate of Monash University School of Medicine, and is currently a PGY1 (post-graduate year 1) on Emergency Medicine rotation in Western Health, Melbourne, Australia. She is currently focused on the clinical aspects of her career but has plans to delve back into academia/ research further into her career, with a focus on surgery.

A good academic paper, according to Melody, should possess a couple of key qualities: 1) a relevant and thorough literature review to evaluate the existing body of knowledge pertaining to a specific research interest/ topic; 2) demonstrate clear contributions to the current understanding of a specific topic/ research interest; and 3) conciseness and clear communication to convey key ideas to the audience.

In Melody’s opinion, an academic author should possess the following key qualities: 1) diligence and attention to detail to ensure comprehensive writing; 2) humility – To be aware of potential shortcomings in one’s own work and a willingness to address them by seeking advice from peers; and 3) have a clear goal of what they wish to communicate with their respective readers.

“ALES is a well-respected journal within the field of surgery, and we felt our case report established a clear contribution to the current knowledge of anastomotic complications and should reach as many readers as possible with similar interests. The case report was written under the guidance of Colorectal surgeons Dr. Christopher Steen and A/Prof. Stephen Bell, whose mentorship was invaluable. The decision to publish with ALES was made under their guidance,” says Melody.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Karen M. Doersch

Karen Doersch, MD, PhD, is currently a resident physician in the Department of Urology at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York. She is finishing her residency in June 2024 and will be continuing her training as a fellow in Functional and Reconstructive Urology at the University of Colorado. Her clinical interest is in male and female reconstructive urology, especially as it applies to urinary tract strictures and voiding dysfunction. Her research interests are in understanding the immunologic and stromal factors that coordinate fibrosis in the urinary tract. Connect with Dr. Doersch on X and Instagram.

The way Dr. Doersch sees it, academic writing helps clinicians and scientists communicate their research and findings to increase our collective knowledge of the world around us. Writing allows people who would otherwise never meet to communicate ideas and increase the resources available to allow the scientific community to understand scientific and clinical phenomena.

In order to avoid biases in writing, Dr. Doersch points out that it is important to broadly read literature with an open mind. It is also helpful to collaborate with others, especially others of different backgrounds.

“From the beginning of my research career, I have been inspired by so many unique perspectives, experiences, and research studies. It is incredible how quickly our understanding of the world around us changes because of scientists and academically minded individuals who have worked hard to share new ideas,” says Dr. Doersch.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

J. Joshua Smith

Dr. J. Joshua Smith serves as an Associate Member of the Colorectal Service in the Department of Surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). As a surgeon and physician-scientist, he seeks to uncover more precise treatments for each individual rectal and colon cancer patient. He actively cares for patients with rectal, colon, and anal cancer using modern surgical methods in a cutting-edge multidisciplinary setting in New York. He is the co-Chair of the GI Oncology portfolio for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, the co-chair of the GI Surgery Committee for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, and is a member of the NCI's Rectal Anal Task Force. He also serves as the Chair and Primary Investigator for the Janus Rectal Cancer Trial, an NCI-approved Phase II/III trial investigating clinical complete response and disease-free survival in patients with rectal cancer through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, SWOG and NRG Oncology (NCT02008656). He leads an NCI-funded laboratory at MSK, working to understand the molecular underpinnings of disease progression in patients with rectal cancer and to develop individualized disease models facilitating both effective research and precision treatment. He also serves as PI of the T32 Surgical Oncology Training Grant at MSK. Connect with Dr. Smith on X @JoshSmithMDPhD.

There are a few essential elements of a good academic paper, in Dr. Smith’s view. They include: plain, easy-to-understand writing with simple points conveying a clear message for the reader; a short introduction that does not belabor the issues at hand or distract the reader; concise methods that are easy to understand and encourage reproducibility; Results section and figures that are simple and easy to read (at any time of the day) and on any media (phone, laptop or iPad/tablet); and lastly, Discussion section consisting of i) what the authors found, ii) why what they found is important, iii) in what context should we consider the results, iv) strengths/limitations of the study, and v) conclusions.

Science advances rapidly day by day. To ensure his writing is up-to-date, Dr. Smith reads broadly and daily. He reviews at least 3-4 papers/month to stay sharp. On the other hand, he also writes often. And he would discuss papers with colleagues in a journal club on a regular basis.

“Writing is a process. It takes time and devoted effort to become adept at writing an easy-to-understand and effective manuscript. It also takes devoted mentors and advocates who are willing to read and critique your work. I am still working on my writing skills to this day and learn from my current and past mentors every time I write a new paper or abstract. The more you read, write and seek feedback, the better you get!” says Dr. Smith.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Wendy S. Li

Dr. Wendy S. Li is a PGY3 resident in the Department of General Surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine. Her research focuses on clinical outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and bariatric surgery. Currently, her focus is on evaluating the impact of cognitive load on surgeons during laparoscopic versus robotic surgery, aiming to enhance surgical efficiency and patient safety. Connect with her on X @md_wendyli.

To Dr. Li, one of the biggest challenges in academic writing is articulating complex ideas in a clear, concise manner. She points out that it is easy to become bogged down in technical language, which can obscure the focus of the message. Additionally, organizing research findings in a logical, coherent structure while ensuring that the narrative flows seamlessly can be difficult. She adds, “Now returning as full-time clinical resident, time constraints and balancing clinical duties with research commitments also make the writing process challenging.”

Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. When selecting evidence for synthesis, Dr. Li prioritizes high-quality, peer-reviewed studies, especially systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. The relevance of the evidence to the research question is equally important. She then evaluates specific articles of relevance and ensures that the selected studies provide diverse perspectives and avoids cherry-picking data that skew results. During the synthesis process, maintaining objectivity and critically appraising the quality and limitations of the studies, in her opinion, are essential to avoid bias.

In addition, Dr. Li highlights that disclosing Conflict of Interest (COI) is essential for transparency and maintaining the integrity of the research as COI can potentially influence how data are interpreted, which could bias the study’s conclusions. By openly addressing COIs, researchers allow readers to assess the credibility of the findings. She believes full disclosure is important to uphold ethical standards as any relevant influence could undermine the trustworthiness of research findings.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Judy Li

Judy Li, MD, is currently a Surgical Oncology Clinical Research Fellow in the Department of Surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and a general surgery resident at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. Her research focuses on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies.  

In Dr. Li’s opinion, a good manuscript is clear, concise and contributes to the current field of knowledge. It introduces the study question and examines the data critically. Significant findings are highlighted, but shortcomings and next steps should also be addressed.

Dr. Li highlights that it is incredibly important to seek feedback throughout the writing process – co-authors can offer insight and different perspectives that can enhance the manuscript. Simultaneously, she reckons that receiving constructive criticism is an important skill to practice during the writing process. Authors will also benefit from doing a thorough literature review prior to the writing process to see what the breadth of knowledge is about their topic, so that they may understand how their manuscript contributes to the field.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Ishfaq Bhat

Ishfaq Bhat, MD, is the Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship Director and an Associate Program Director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship. He works as a Therapeutic Advanced Endoscopist at the Nebraska Medical Center with focus on interventional EUS and third space endoscopy. His clinical focus is on therapeutic GI endoscopy and research focus is on outcomes in GI endoscopy in general, therapeutic endoscopy in particular, and specifically, efficacy and safety outcomes of EUS interventions and third space endoscopy techniques. The recent manuscripts published have included topics like endosonographic portal pressure gradient measurements, endoscopic full thickness resection, diagnostic yield in subepithelial tumors, and length of endoscopic myotomy. His mission is patient care, fellow teaching, and scholarly work.

An academic paper that tries to answer a clear research question, uses rigorous methodology and has a potential to impact clinical practice, in Dr. Bhat’s view, is a good academic paper.

Speaking of the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, Dr. Bhat highlights that newer academic writers might often face difficulty in organization of ideas and a lack of flow, overuse of complex and too technical language, and occasionally lack of critical review of literature.

“Academic writing is fascinating due to contribution of ideas to shape the direction of future research, intellectual stimulation and reward, and lastly deeper understanding of unexpected links between different fields,” says Dr. Bhat.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)