In 2024, many TAU 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)

Blair R. Peters, Oregon Health & Science University, USA

Kellen Choi, The University of Louisville, USA

Kevin Kayvan Zarrabi, Thomas Jefferson University, USA

Aaron C. Lentz, Duke University, USA

Kevin Koo, Mayo Clinic, USA

Daniel A. González-Padilla, Clinical Universidad de Navarra, Spain

Jeanny B. Aragon-Ching, The Inova Schar Cancer Institute, USA

Keisei Okamoto, Prostate Institute of Osaka, Japan

Manuela Andrea Hoffmann, The Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Germany

Thomas Satterwhite, Stanford University, USA

Benjamin Maughan, Huntsman Cancer Institute, USA

Brian M. Inouye, Albany Medical Center, USA

Bashir Al Hussein, Weill Cornell Medicine, USA

Timothy K. O'Rourke, Cape Cod Hospital, USA

Luca Incrocci, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, The Netherlands

Wesley Baas, The University of Cincinnati, USA

Ashorne K. Mahenthiran, Indiana University, USA

David T. Miyamoto, Harvard Medical School, USA

Benoit Peyronnet, Rennes University, France

Weida Lau, Yishun Health, Singapore

Daniel S. Elliott, The Mayo Clinic College, USA

Eric Chung, University of Queensland, Australia

Jeissen Pyo, McGovern Medical School, USA

Jay Simhan, Temple Health and Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA

Ross A. Cartmill, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia

Ryan P. Smith, The University of Virginia, USA

Outstanding Author

Blair R. Peters

Dr. Blair Peters is a double fellowship-trained plastic surgeon who specializes in gender-affirming surgery and peripheral nerve surgery. He is an Assistant Professor in both the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and the Department of Urology at Oregon Health & Science University and current Director of the Advanced Gender-Affirming Surgery Fellowship. He is one of the first surgeons in North America to complete a fellowship in comprehensive gender-affirming surgery. He carries out clinical research that focuses on optimizing sensation and nerve outcomes in gender-affirming and genital surgery and individualized approaches to patient care. He is frequently invited to speak nationally and internationally regarding techniques in gender and genital surgery. And he is a recognized expert in surgical techniques and multi-disciplinary approaches to gender-affirming care. He strives to be a strong voice in medicine and surgery and focuses on shifting the culture of medicine and mentoring future generations of affirming surgeons. Connect with Dr. Peters on Instagram/Threads: @queersurgeon.

The most essential element of a paper, according to Dr. Peters, is its purpose. To him, we are in a culture of academic medicine that often demands productivity. Unfortunately, that has led to a lot of bloat of the body of literature and a push to publish just to “publish”. The best papers have a clear purpose, whether that is to answer an unanswered question, report a novel surgical technique, etc. If the purpose is clear and shines through, then the paper will carry meaning and impact.

In Dr. Peters’ opinion, during preparation of a paper, authors should keep the intended audience in mind. He adds, “No one reading your paper will know more about that specific topic than you do. There can be a tendency to want to put every pearl of wisdom or knowledge you have into a body of work. However, that can often translate into information overload and the true purpose or ‘takeaway’ of a paper getting lost. The most effective papers have a clear purpose and answer a clear question.”

Lastly, Dr. Peters shares that he chooses to publish in TAU because the journal format allows for robust coverage of topics that sometimes require a significant amount of text or figures. He explains, “It is a great journal for review articles and expert opinion pieces regarding advanced surgical techniques. Many of these types of papers from TAU are both highly cited but also beloved by surgeons and surgical trainees as they are highly clinically relevant and inform practice.”

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Kellen Choi

Kellen Choi is an Advisory Dean and Faculty Urologist at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Her research focuses on neurourology and urologic surgeries that affect patients’ quality of life and surgical outcomes. She is a fellowship-trained, board-certified urologic surgeon who concentrates on research on surgical education and outcomes, novel surgical techniques, and ways to improve surgical outcomes in urology, and helping spinal cord injury patients recover their urologic functions with neuromodulation. She has a broad background in urology, with specific training and expertise in reconstructive urology and neurourology.

According to Dr. Choi, good academic papers answer novel questions or attempt to find validity in well-known phenomena that have been accepted for decades as dogma in the scientific community. She regards continuous curiosity and persistence as key skills for an author. By being curious about why certain patients get better but not others and what the true mechanism of action is for certain treatment options, the author can think outside the box to connect the dots. When mentoring medical students, she advises them to anticipate multiple rejections before acceptance of their manuscript. Having the grit to be encouraged to try again when the manuscript is not published is crucial to academic writing.

Dr. Choi shares her own experience during academic writing, “One of my happiest memories of my initial academic writing experience is my intern year during my urology residency at Charleston Area Medica Center. As a young urology intern, we worked at a urology resident clinic once a week. We had a couple of biochemical recurrence patients after prostatectomy who had positive surgical margins (PSM), and I noticed some of them and adjuvant radiation, but some of them did not. As a young intern, still learning the wonderful, vast world of urology, I asked my attending out of curiosity, ‘What do you do when patients have biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy? And how come some patients got immediate radiation after prostatectomy when they had a positive surgical margin, but some people waited until biochemical recurrence happened?’ My attending physician kindly described the difference between adjuvant radiation and salvage radiation and explained to me that, at the time, there was inconclusive data on what to do with PSM patients after prostatectomy. Our curiosity about the topic led to my very first urology project that started my urology research career, looking at retrospective data on prostatectomy patients who had PSM and BCR. I thank Dr. Deem for helping me navigate problem-solving skills and continuing with a curious mind. It gave me confidence that research ideas could start from anywhere, including the resident clinic discussing patient care, even as a young intern!”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Kevin Kayvan Zarrabi

Kevin Kayvan Zarrabi, MS, MS, FACP, is an Assistant Professor and a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA. He specializes in genitourinary oncology with a focus on renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and germ cell tumors. Dr. Zarrabi has published numerous articles pertaining to genitourinary malignancies. He is an active clinical and translational researcher, has worked to design clinical trials and serves as an investigator on multiple studies pertaining to urologic disease. He completed his undergraduate studies at Stony Brook University in New York with a major in Biochemistry and Cell Biology. He then completed his master’s degree in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics. Through that time, Dr. Zarrabi performed laboratory-based research studying the matrix metalloproteases and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and their role in cancer cell migration. He then completed his medical degree at St. Georges University School of Medicine, and his residency at Stony Brook University Hospital, where he also served as chief resident. Dr. Zarrabi then went on to complete his hematology/oncology fellowship at the venerable Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. He is an active member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the America Association for Cancer Researcher, and Faculty of the American College of Physicians. Connect with him on Twitter.

Dr. Zarrabi thinks that academic writing is at the foundation of scientific progress – pertaining to the biomedical sciences, humanities-based sciences, and alternative areas of study. At its core, academic writing embodies ethical principles and aims to remain objective in its goal, which is to share novel thoughts, perspectives, or data with the community at large in a clear and concise manner. Academic writing is structured and requires careful consideration of how to best convey the content intended to be shared, which provides time for pause and appraisal of one’s own work. This is important, as one’s work is informed by their own perceptions and experiences, which may be inherently biased. Further, academic writing is typically an ideal space for peer review, which is an important and historic practice dating back to the 5^th century and provides opportunity for external critique and evaluation of the writing and content.

In Dr. Zarrabi’s view, peer review can be wearing and even condemnatory. To him, when academic writing feels arduous, he often finds solace in the body of work he aims to share through his writing. Once successful in publishing, the work is then considered a forever part of the greater body of literature pertaining to the subject matter. In rare instances, the work can be timeless and impact the future direction of science – and often that value is felt years or decades after initial publication. Regardless of the overall ‘impact’ a single publication or manuscript may have, or even if the body of work is proven to be incorrect or controversial, all academic writing will always have value. In all, the path towards publication is a rich and rewarding experience.

In Dr. Zarrabi’s opinion, navigating data sharing is complex – but in the instances where platforms, databases, and journals have been developed which enable safe and transparent data sharing, it has been fruitful and facilitated scientific discovery. Whether in the basic sciences, translational, or clinical research, data sharing can streamline communication of scientific data, in a verifiable matter that increases reproducibility and ultimately even public trust. In instances of effective data sharing, often through well-funded or governmental biobanks and databases, the possibilities for advancement are abundant.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Aaron C. Lentz

Dr. Aaron C. Lentz, MD, FACS, is a Professor of Surgery in the Duke University Department of Urology. He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for medical school and residency before completing a fellowship in genitourinary reconstructive surgery at Duke University. He is the founder and director of the Duke Urology Men’s Health Center where he focuses on complex urethral stricture disease; prosthetic urology including penile implants for erectile dysfunction, as well as artificial urinary sphincters and minimally invasive slings for male stress urinary incontinence. In addition to his clinical role, Dr. Lentz is the Chief of Surgical Services at Duke Raleigh Hospital, the co-director of the Duke Urology Genitourinary Reconstructive Fellowship, and an active board member of the Society of Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons (SUPS). His research efforts focus on genitourinary prosthetics with a special interest in preventing and managing infectious and iatrogenic complications. He also enjoys developing novel surgical techniques in both reconstructive and prosthetic urology. His profile can be accessed here.

Dr. Lentz believes a good academic paper begins with a well-crafted question, one that possesses the capacity to challenge existing norms or enhance the standards of clinical care. It delves into existing literature, critically evaluates methodologies, and presents findings with clarity and precision. Ultimately, a good academic paper not only informs but also inspires further inquiry in the pursuit of improved clinical care.

To avoid biases in one’s writing, Dr. Lentz suggests writers must first acknowledge that implicit bias is present in all of them. Start by critically examining their own beliefs and assumptions to recognize potential biases. Continually question their results, ask colleagues to do the same, and always use precise, unambiguous language.

“To all academic writers dedicated to advancing scientific progress, remember that your journey is as significant as the destination. Embrace curiosity and let it guide your exploration. Surround yourself with supportive mentors who champion your growth and offer valuable guidance along the way. Remember, each word you write and each idea you explore contributes to the collective pursuit of knowledge. Stay passionate, stay persistent, and don’t forget how to laugh!” says Dr. Lentz.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Kevin Koo

Kevin Koo, MD, MPH, MPhil, is an Associate Professor of Urology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. He specializes in the medical and surgical management of urinary stone disease and is Co-Director of the Multidisciplinary Stone Clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Dr. Koo maintains an active translational research program supported by the National Institutes of Health studying the mechanisms of kidney stone pathophysiology. His research expertise also encompasses technology development, surgical education, and surgical quality improvement. As a frequent contributor to the medical literature, Dr. Koo is an editor of The Journal of Urology and Urology Practice. He serves on numerous committees and advisory councils of the American Urological Association, Endourological Society, and American College of Surgeons. He is a graduate of Yale School of Medicine and completed a urology residency at Dartmouth and an endourology fellowship at Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Koo believes academic writing allows authors to communicate complex, sometimes esoteric ideas in a systematic, decipherable way. However, the purpose of academic writing is not simply to record science and medicine. Rather, he thinks good academic writing is a foundation for scientific discovery and intellectual innovation. He states that a carefully crafted research article can capture the author's imagination and inspire further investigation. He explains that devoting as much effort to writing about research findings as authors do to generating them can help others understand their work and expand its boundaries.

From Dr. Koo’s perspective, authors can think of themselves as storytellers. Good academic writing, like many forms of writing in general, should feel like the author is telling the reader a story. Just as every story has a beginning, middle, and end, the writing follows a natural progression and includes sufficient detail to help the reader understand the narrative without being overwhelmed by minutiae. When the reader reaches the end of the story, there should be a satisfying and logical conclusion. He encourages the trainees and junior investigators who work with him to focus on this concept of presenting the work as a story.

Speaking of allocating time to write papers, Dr. Koo shares, “My strategy is to work on the manuscript a little bit every day. I try to allocate 15 or 30 minutes at a time, for instance, between surgical cases or before my clinic begins in the morning. For me, the key is to divide the manuscript into smaller, more manageable sections. My goal for the day might be to draft a few sentences of the discussion or format raw data into a readable table. Focusing on achievable writing goals helps to ensure daily progress, build momentum, and reduce frustration. These goals also remind me that academic writing, like any clinical or technical skill, tends to become easier with routine practice.”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Daniel A. González-Padilla

Dr. Daniel A. González-Padilla is a urologist specializing in uro-oncology, particularly bladder, kidney, and prostate cancer. He did his urology training at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre in Madrid, Spain, and currently works at Clinical Universidad de Navarra, an academic high-volume private center. His main research areas are related to bladder and prostate cancer. He is passionate about evidence-based medicine and sharing decision-making since his early days in medical school, including some academic works with Cochrane Collaboration. Currently, he is involved in various research projects, such as utilizing urine biomarkers and bladder MRI for diagnosing primary and recurrent bladder cancer, and conducting clinical trials to test new treatments for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Dr. González-Padilla states the three pillars of medical practice are care, teaching, and research. Scientific writing is part of research and teaching. Doctors need to keep up to date with all the medical advances through continuous reading. Writing is also important, as authors must read to research and write. He believes writing scientific articles will always be a positive activity for authors and the patients under their care, although it is not mandatory.

Dr. González-Padilla emphasizes the importance of data sharing in writing. He believes that data sharing should be a standard practice, and hopefully, it will be required for all submissions to provide data for external analyses in the future. Some meta-research has shown that re-analyzing data can show different results and possibly change the findings in the opposite direction. He thinks authors should all be open to an external audit, and the ultimate balance will always remain positive for science.

Lastly, Dr. González-Padilla would like to say a few words to encourage other writers, “I think it is important to remember every once in a while that ‘What you do is important’. Without academics, we would not advance as a field, there would be no developments and questions would remain unanswered.”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Jeanny B. Aragon-Ching

Jeanny B. Aragon-Ching, M.D., F.A.C.P., serves as the Clinical Program Director of Genitourinary Cancers and Medical Director of Clinical Research at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, United States, with a joint academic appointment as Associate Professor of Medical Education at the University of Virginia. She completed an internship and residency at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where she served the final year as Chief Resident. She later completed a Medical Oncology Fellowship at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, where she served as an Associate Investigator on varying trials involved with pharmacogenomics, and early drug discovery for genitourinary tumors. Dr. Aragon-Ching later moved to the George Washington University Medical Center in 2008 and was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor of Medicine in 2014. Her early research work focused on the use of angiogenesis inhibitors, bone-targeted agents, clinical trial design and drug development. She has served in varying capacities as a peer reviewer, editorial board member and expert panel for highly acclaimed journals and congressionally directed research program grants. She is a well-published author and investigator of multiple GU cancer trials, and educator and serves on the Editorial Board of various academic journals. Dr. Aragon-Ching has chaired national meetings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and has delivered esteemed presentations at the Society of Urologic Oncology, Best of ASCO and the ASCO Annual Meeting and was also active in the ASCO GU Program Planning Committee, serving as Track Chair for Urothelial Cancers. She was part of the ASCO Leadership Development Program. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Dr. Aragon-Ching believes good academic writing should be valid, full of integrity, and reproducible. There are varying types of research papers. It is important for authors to understand the audience and the key message of the dataset they are working on, the data and information they have, and what they would like to convey. She thinks there are different types of manuscripts and different levels of evidence, and understanding the journal objectives and scope will help authors prepare for which journal is the right home for their manuscripts.

“It is important to keep and stay abreast of your passion and goals, always to strive to advance scientific endeavors and progress no matter what field you are in,” says Dr. Aragon-Ching.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Keisei Okamoto

Dr. Keisei Okamoto has been devoted to the low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) of prostate cancer for nearly 20 years. He has treated over 1500 patients with prostate cancer by LDR-BT. LDR-BT is neither a new nor a costlier treatment modality but instead has a long history. Image-guided prostate LDR-BT has been routinely practiced for over three decades. Stock and Stone et al. first reported prostate brachytherapy delivered via intraoperative planning in 1995 using a biplanar ultrasound probe. He has published a quality LDR-BT technique with a high radiation dose (Ten-step method), which can treat both inside and outside the prostate (2021). By using the Ten-step method, he has shown good clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk (2019) and high-risk prostate cancer (2017). In April 2024, he launched a new hospital named Prostate Institute of Osaka (PIO), specializing in LDR-BT. He is now the director of PIO.

Dr. Okamoto believes academic writing is namely logical writing. To write a scientific paper, authors must construct a vigorous logical structure based on solid evidence. To evaluate whether a paper is critical, authors should check the structure of the paper and whether logical consistency is maintained throughout the sections: introduction (the aim of the study), materials and methods, results, and discussion.

“In this global and social network community of today with an open access system, the meaning of medical publications has evolved dramatically. Now medical publication should be recognized as critical information not only for specialists but also for patients: this means that publications should not be limited to those that contribute to the specialists ‘body of knowledge’. The patients do not want ‘the body of knowledge’ sequestered in Ivory Towers, but do seek information that may benefit them in their cases,” says Dr. Okamoto.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Manuela Andrea Hoffmann

Dr. Manuela Andrea Hoffmann is the Head of the Institute for Preventive Medicine of the German Armed Forces. Additionally, she is a Scientist at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz. She is a Medicine Doctor and Specialist in Nuclear Medicine and also a Specialist in Occupational and Preventive Medicine. In 2018, she got the Dagmar-Eißner-Award for the research from the Central Rhine Society for Nuclear Medicine. Her research focuses on nuclear and preventive medicine. In recent years, she focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The most recently published papers at the end of 2023 and in 2024 dealt, among other things, with the topics “Influence of hypothyroid and of hyperthroid metabolic status on blood coagulation; Hybrid positron emission tomography /computed tomography imaging with PSMA; Prevalence of obesity and associated health risks; Magnetic resonance imaging.” More information about her publications can be found here.

Dr. Hoffmann thinks the essential elements of a good academic paper are a clearly defined research question with clear research objectives, a clear description of the findings and results, a discussion of the research results, and a comparison with the results of other comparable studies with clear formulations, indications of the study's limitations and a conclusion of the own results for the scientific community and (in the case of a medical scientific paper) the treatment of patients in clinical settings. Overall, the topic of the paper is intended to make an important research contribution.

From Dr. Hoffmann’s perspective, the key skill sets of an author of scientific papers include focusing on a problem and formulating the research objectives well, writing clearly, presenting the results clearly, looking critically at one’s results, and discussing one’s own findings, even if they are critical, comparing with those of other researchers ideas and results, as well as concluding the own research findings and transferring the theoretical results into the clinical-practical setting.

“The scientific interdisciplinary exchange within the research team and with scientists and other research groups in the national and international research network is particularly important to me. In addition to gaining new knowledge in medicine, networking always motivates me to continue writing,” says Dr. Hoffmann.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Thomas Satterwhite

Dr. Thomas Satterwhite earned his Bachelor's (Human Biology with Honors) and Medical Degree at Stanford University, USA. He completed his residency in Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery at Stanford Hospital and further specialized with a craniofacial fellowship under Dr. S. Anthony Wolfe in Miami, FL. He has delivered over 80 national and international presentations and authored more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. He holds leadership roles in organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. He is a peer reviewer and on the editorial board for many respected journals, and he is an Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor at Stanford. He has been providing gender affirmation surgical care in San Francisco, CA since 2014. More information can be found here. Connect with him on Instagram.

The way Dr. Satterwhite sees it, a good academic paper should be relevant to its readers and address a clear scientific question with rigor in data gathering and analysis. It must present findings objectively, avoid hyperbolic language, and allow the results to speak for themselves if they are indeed remarkable. A thoughtful discussion is essential. While randomized control trials are the gold standard for clinical papers, achieving this can be challenging. Nonetheless, in his view, all clinical papers should strive for academic rigor and aim to go beyond simple technical reports or case series, though these also have their value.

According to Dr. Satterwhite, finding time and help, during academic writing, can be quite challenging. Clinicians face numerous demands, including patient care, surgery (for surgeons), involvement in organizations and committees, and increasing administrative duties. While having an interesting research question is important, executing the research plan requires significant time and effort—securing funding, setting up IRB, enrolling patients, developing validated questionnaires, conducting statistical analyses, editing, building a research team, and submitting to journals. He adds, “I am in private practice with an academic affiliation. We are fortunate to have a team of multiple surgeons and support staff, and we engage regularly with medical students and residents. Additionally, we have a large patient database for analysis. Most of our research focuses on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in gender-affirming surgery. Over the past two years, we’ve hired a dedicated Research Director who oversees and coordinates all our projects, delegates tasks to the research team, and ensures we meet deadlines. This has been a game-changer for us busy surgeons.”

“Academic writing and research are fascinating because they allow me to fully explore any question I have. In particular, the field of gender-affirming surgery has a dearth of research, so it’s gratifying to conduct studies and produce quality manuscripts that can have a meaningful impact on the gender-diverse community and those involved in their medical care. Despite the increasing constraints we face in practicing medicine, academic writing provides a refreshing opportunity for creativity, curiosity, and freedom, allowing me to create something that is truly my own,” says Dr. Satterwhite.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Benjamin L. Maughan

Benjamin Maughan, MD, PharmD, is an Associate Professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Huntsman Cancer Institute specializing in genitourinary malignancies. He completed his PharmD, cum laude, from Idaho State University in 2004, then completed an oncology pharmacy residency at Mountain States Tumor Institute in 2005. He earned his MD, cum laude, from the University of Kentucky, College of Medicine in 2010 and finished his Internal Medicine residency with the University of Utah in 2013. He subsequently completed his medical oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins in 2016. He was awarded the Huntsman Cancer Institute Translational Scholar Award in 2019, and was selected for the 2019 SWOG Young Investigator Training Course. Dr. Maughan has clinical and research interests in clinical and translational research. His particular focus is in developing novel therapeutics and in identification of predictive biomarkers. Currently, he is exploring novel immune therapy combinations in prostate and kidney cancer. He is the national lead investigator for the SWOG clinical trial in papillary kidney cancer, S2200 (PAPMET2). Connect with him on X @maughanonc.

TAU: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?

Dr. Maughan: Most clinical results are interpreted and applied to patient care. Rarely do our patients exactly fit the context of the clinical studies. Understanding the extent and limitations of each study is essential to best apply those data to our patients. The methods are often overlooked but are critical for appropriate interpretation of each study.

TAU: Do you think it is important to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, CONSORT and CARE) during preparation of manuscripts?

Dr. Maughan: Yes. This creates a standard framework for each reader to understand the context of the study in relation to prior work. Additionally, this helps understand the structure and conduct of the study.

TAU: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?

Dr. Maughan: For some people, writing and editing manuscript can be difficult—writing in general can be challenging! I find it particularly important to remember the reason for writing each specific manuscript. This helps me to see each project to completion. We all work collectively in order to drive science forward towards better outcomes for our patients. We are making progress but still have more work to do in order to cure cancer!

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Brian M. Inouye

Dr. Brian Inouye is a fellowship-trained reconstructive urologist who practices at Albany Medical Center in Albany, NY in the US. His research focuses on the mechanisms and natural history of the pathology within reconstructive urology and genitourinary cancer survivorship. He has been awarded the Urology Care Foundation Resident Research Award for his work on understanding the mechanisms in diabetic bladder dysfunction. His recent clinical projects focus on determining the association between patient frailty and reconstructive surgical outcomes, management of pubovesical fistula, and best practices of the artificial sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis. Connect with him on X @BrianInouyeMD.

In Dr. Inouye’s opinion, a good academic paper should answer a question, which can be novel, reinforcing a previously presented idea, or even refuting dogma. To him, methods are incredibly important as the project should be reproducible and minimize confounders.

Dr. Inouye always finds the review process to be the most difficult part of publishing a paper. In view of this, he recommends the authors be patient and prepared for edits, and remember that reviewers want to improve the paper to help the at-large urology community.

Speaking of the reason to publish in TAU, Dr. Inouye says, “I was invited to write in the journal by a guest editor. Being able to contribute alongside international experts is an honor.”

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Bashir Al Hussein

Dr. Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh, MD, MPH, is an Assistant Professor of Urology and Population Health Sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. His research interests include applying epidemiological methods to improve care quality for cancer patients, focusing on decision-making, survivorship, and disparities stemming from social determinants of health. Recently, he focuses on studying the functional outcomes of treatments for localized prostate cancer. Connect with him on X/Twitter.

Dr. Al Hussein believes the most important elements of an academic paper include a clear research question and hypothesis. The research question should be stated clearly in the introduction. The methods should be simple and allow for reproducibility. The results should mirror the methods, and there should be no surprises—everything should be delineated in the methods section. The discussion does not need to be long or overly elaborate; it should highlight and contrast the results, which should stand out by themselves.

Dr. Al Hussein thinks tenacity is the most important quality of an author. The author must be willing to look at the paper many times, read it, and have the patience and will to continue refining it until it communicates the results and message as clearly and succinctly as possible. The author also needs to be collaborative and responsive.

“When I worked on my first paper from start to finish, it took me almost a year to collect data, learn how to analyze it and write the paper. At every stage, asking for help was crucial to my progress. I learned that academics are always willing to help if you are willing to put in the work,” says Dr. Al Hussein.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Timothy K. O’Rourke

Dr. Timothy K. O'Rourke, Jr. is a fellowship-trained urologist in Hyannis, MA and associate of Urology Associates of Cape Cod, P.C. He is affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital. He completed his Endourological Society fellowship in Winston Salem, NC at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and Wake Forest University School of Medicine where he served as an Assistant Instructor in the Department of Urology and Fellow in Robotic and Minimally Invasive Urological Surgery under the tutelage of Dr. Ashok K. Hemal. He received his medical degree from the Quinnipiac University Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine in Hamden, CT and completed his urology residency at Brown University / Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, RI. He specializes in robotic and minimally invasive urological surgery, including minimally invasive urologic oncology, and general urology. Recent areas of research focus include outcomes in robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. Learn more about Dr. O'Rourke here, and connect with him on Twitter/X.

In Dr. O'Rourke’s opinion, often, the major challenge in academic writing is evidence distillation and presentation in a meaningful way that not only expresses the major findings of a particular study but in a way that captivates the readers and maintains interest. He thinks it is important to create an organization schema that presents the data in a way that is digestible but also detailed. Communication with co-authors to ensure the paper is written in a cohesive way is also important to ensure that the writing and stylistic aspects flow well with multiple people working on various aspects of the paper.

When designing a study, Dr. O'Rourke highlights that it is critically important to be mindful of the specific question to be answered and ancillary questions that may be addressed in the same manuscript. When analyzing evidence available, whether in contributing original research or a review article, the presentation of data should be in a way that harkens back to the original research question. To him, objectivity in presenting data is critical. In designing the approach to data presentation, one must consider how to analyze the data and convey implications and how to not only answer one’s research question, but also apply to the audience in a way that emphasizes applicability. At the end of the day, the goal is to convince the readers that:

1. your research question is important.
2. you have taken a very logical and detail-oriented approach to answer this question.
3. your results either confirm or deny your hypothesis, why or why not, and how this is (or may someday) be applicable to the clinical practice of medicine.

Significant, major advances in modern medicine have come through partnership with industry to complete massive studies that require significant resources. According to Dr. O'Rourke, Conflict of Interest (COI) reporting provides transparency, strengthens manuscripts, and helps validate findings. He explains, “When I am critically analyzing a research paper, one of the first things I do is look at the COI disclosures. This helps to frame why the research is being undertaken and allows for an optimized perspective. What is the angle? A healthy critical analysis of research should always seek to understand why—this can be at times be answered in part by looking at the background of the authors and sponsorship of the study.”

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Luca Incrocci

Luca Incrocci is a Professor of Genito-Urinary Radiotherapy at Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research is mainly focused on the Quality of Life of cancer patients, including sexual functioning, and on the development of radiation techniques to improve treatment outcomes, and to decrease side effects after radiation therapy for urological malignancies. Prof. Incrocci is involved in the education and training of PhD students and residents in radiation oncology at Erasmus MC and in international teaching programs. He is a member of several scientific societies including the European Association of Urology, the American and European Societies for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and the European and International Societies for Sexual Medicine. He is a manuscript reviewer for a number of international journals and the author of more than 200 papers, reviews, and book chapters. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

TAU: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?

Prof. Incrocci: A good academic paper clearly describes the rationale and background of the study. It offers detailed information on “Material and Methods” so that other academics can repeat the study accordingly. An exhaustive and up-to-date reference list is mandatory for a good academic paper. An extensive discussion section and future directions for research are essential to help improve future research questions.

TAU: Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates you to do so?

Prof. Incrocci: The most important task when working at an academic hospital or institution (together with patient care) is doing research, and giving training and education to young researchers and residents. This takes much of your time but it will enrich your views and will help in conducting successful research. Discussions with your peers will be fundamental. Doing so will improve (cancer) care and our patient’s quality of life.

TAU: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?

Prof. Incrocci: Writing academic papers needs time and a learning curve. Do not be discouraged if the first 2-3 manuscripts will take a lot of your time and might even be rejected immediately. This is part of becoming an academic researcher. Keep an open mind and discuss your ideas and hypotheses with colleagues, and the best way to perform successful research is to be a team player.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Wesley Baas

Dr. Wesley Baas is an Assistant Professor of Urology and Director of Men’s Health at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Department of Urology. He completed a urology residency at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield, Illinois. Then, he completed a GURS trauma and reconstructive urology fellowship at Washington University in St. Louis. His areas of interest include men’s sexual health including ED and Peyronie’s Disease, as well as lower urinary tract symptoms and genitourinary reconstruction. 

Dr. Baas thinks academic writing is the cornerstone of science. One could conduct numerous valuable studies, but without being documented and published, they will not have any impact. The Renaissance happened largely in part because of the printing press and the ability to quickly disseminate knowledge. He adds that the ability to disseminate knowledge via writing is just as important now.

Dr. Baas reckons one of the most difficult parts of academia is keeping the writing up-to-date. The amount of medical knowledge is constantly growing, and the growth is at a staggering rate. There is simply no way to keep up with everything that is being published in medicine. He explains he makes it work by focusing on his small sub-specialty within urology by reading quality journals, and also tries his best to stay abreast of major changes outside his sub-specialty by talking with colleagues and attending conferences.

“Academic writing certainly does take a lot of time and effort. For most people, this time is uncompensated, and one could certainly make more money seeing patients in the clinic or doing surgeries. Because of this, it must be a passion or it will simply fall to the back of the line in terms of time allocation. My passion is not so much derived from the research itself but from the education that goes into working with medical students, residents, fellows, etc. when writing. I greatly enjoy the question asking that comes with doing research and I am always amazed by students and the unique questions they want to answer with research and academic writing,” says Dr. Bass.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Ashorne K. Mahenthiran

Dr. Ashorne Mahenthiran is a current junior resident in Urology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, IN, USA. He received his undergraduate degree in Neuroscience and Science in Human Culture from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL in 2019. He then went on to receive his medical degree from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, IL, USA as part of the Honors Program in Medical Education and was elected to the Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) Honor Society in 2023. His current research is focused on evaluating improvements in clinical outcomes due to technical advancements in minimally invasive surgery, urologic oncology, and reconstructive urology.

Dr. Mahenthiran reckons a good academic paper can succinctly communicate to the reader the intention and results of a study, as well as its potential application to adjusting clinical practice. As part of this, a study should have a specific and reproducible aim that fits within the appropriate subject matter for the selected journal. The methodology and strategy for statistical analysis should be followed identically for each variable, and the limitations of the study should be acknowledged and addressed. Finally, the conclusions of a good academic paper are directly related to the study’s findings and do not overstate the impact of the results. 

To keep writing up-to-date, prior to starting the writing process, whether for a retrospective analysis, review article, or otherwise, Dr. Mahenthiran conducts a thorough literature review of the topic he is investigating. By doing this, an understanding can be gained of the current state of knowledge about a topic and can help identify gaps in the literature that would benefit from focused investigation. Collaboration is also very important to ensuring scientific writing is up-to-date and insightful. Additionally, he always plans to have peers or mentors review or provide insights on my research, as their perspectives can often unearth beneficial adjustments.

“Academic writing inevitably opens doors to future opportunities, regardless of level of training. I have been fortunate to learn from and work alongside others in the field of urology, who have made a dramatic impact on my career to this point,” says Dr. Mahenthiran.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

David T. Miyamoto

David Miyamoto, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology at Harvard Medical School, an Investigator at the Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and an Associate Member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (USA). As a physician-scientist, he leads a translational research laboratory at MGH that has been supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Radiation Oncology Institute. His research efforts focus on the development of novel biomarkers to guide bladder and prostate cancer therapy and improve the individualized care of each patient, with a particular emphasis on the molecular analysis of circulating tumor cells and tumor tissues. He is also a board-certified radiation oncologist specializing in genitourinary malignancies who sees patients at MGH.

TAU: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Miyamoto: Academic writing is the lifeblood of scientific research. Publications in academic journals represent the definitive record of scientific knowledge acquired through research activities. Original research articles are the distillation of months to years of scientific research compressed into a few pages of figures and text, while editorials and review articles are the distillation of numerous research articles into a big-picture reframing of a field of inquiry. Without the scientific literature, there would be no documentation of the extensive expansion in our scientific knowledge across multiple fields that our society has been fortunate to benefit from.

TAU: Science advances rapidly day by day. How do you ensure your writing is up-to-date and can give new insights into the field of research?

Dr. Miyamoto: Staying up to date with advances in science has always been a challenge, and it has become even more challenging in recent years with the explosion of available scientific journals. I use several strategies to ensure my writing and thinking are up-to-date in my field of research. First, whenever I write a review, editorial, or research article, I do a thorough search of recently published literature related to the topic using every search engine available to me on the Internet. I make sure to repeat this search just prior to manuscript submission if substantial time has passed since starting the writing project. Second, I regularly attend scientific conferences in my field and network with experts to ensure I am aware of the conversation around the latest findings and paradigms, even if still unpublished. Third, I make strategic use of social media, following experts in the field who send out rapid notification alerts regarding the latest exciting findings to come out in the scientific literature, often within minutes of online publication.

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

Dr. Miyamoto: We all lead busy lives, and balancing our many priorities including scientific writing is a constant challenge. One strategy I use is to formally schedule and block off regular writing time in my calendar, rather than organically trying to get writing done in between other tasks such as attending meetings and seeing patients. I find it helpful to temporarily shut off internet access during these scheduled writing times to avoid the constant and never-ending distractions of email and social media. If I still find myself distracted from writing by other obligations and activities, then I find that changing my physical setting (for example to a coffee shop or library) can often help restore my concentration and focus. I hope that some of these tips are helpful to young scientists who are just starting their careers!

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Benoit Peyronnet

Dr. Benoit Peyronnet is a Professor of Urology at Rennes University, Rennes, France where he is the head of the neuro-urology and functional urology program. He completed his medical school at the Paris VI University, his residency at the University of Rennes, Toulouse, and Tours, and his clinical fellowship at the University of Rennes. He then did a 1-year research fellowship in the FPMRS division of the New York University Department of Urology. In 2019, he obtained a PhD at the University of Rennes on the molecular and radiomical characterization of spina bifida lower urinary tract dysfunction. His academic interests and clinical practices are focused on functional urology, neuro-urology, reconstructive urology, and robotics. He has authored or co-authored over 300 peer-reviewed articles. He is a member of the French committee of female pelvic medicine, the EAU guidelines panel of non-neurogenic female LUTS, and the ICS/ICI panel of female urinary incontinence surgery. He serves as the editor-in-chief of the French Journal of Urology Pelvi-Perineology and as an associate editor for the French Journal of Urology, the World Journal of Urology, Continence and Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports.

Dr. Peyronnet believes good academic writing has the following key features. 1) Honesty - Readers have to feel when reading it that the authors have tried to present and analyze their data to answer their research question with no preconceived idea. 2) Ambition - It should be obvious that the authors have tried to answer an important question in the best possible way, not just bringing up their own series. 3) Originality - From the title, readers can tell that this will be something that they have never read so far.

To avoid biases in one’s writing, Dr. Peyronnet thinks it is crucial to prioritize honesty when writing a paper. The purpose of a paper should not be to promote oneself or support personal opinions, but rather to address a well-defined and important research question. It is important to adopt a genuine scientific approach, which involves identifying a relevant question, devising appropriate protocols and methods, accurately analyzing the data, presenting perspectives, discussing and explaining the findings, and drawing honest conclusions.

“The reason I decided to engage in academics is that I realized that there are so many unanswered questions, so many things that we do not know in daily practice. And this is true for pretty much everything in medicine, every specialty, and every condition. This is an incredible power to be able to advance medical knowledge when you know that it can influence practices and change the lives of so many. In my view, there is nothing more magic than this professionally,” says Dr. Peyronnet.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Weida Lau

Dr. Weida Lau is a Consultant Urologist at Yishun Health, Singapore. He holds a Master of Health Professions Education (MHPE) from Maastricht University, and an MBA (with distinction) from Northumbria University in Newcastle, UK. His main interests are in penile oncology, genitourethral reconstruction, male sexual dysfunction, and minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) for prostate enlargement. Despite the low incidence of penile cancer in Singapore, he continues to advocate for minimally invasive procedures for this disease. Thus far, he has published his surgical technique on glansectomy for early penile cancer in the Urology Video Journal (UVJ), and the protocol for sentinel inguinal node biopsy in Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU). In his projects, he continues to work on assessing the clinical outcomes of penile preserving surgery in Singapore, the impact of a urethroplasty practice on urethral stricture management, and the real-world impact of MIST on health services utilization. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

TAU: Why do we need academic writing?

Dr. Lau: Academic writing ensures literature review is well conducted and properly summarized. This helps to justify the need for empirical research undertaken or recommended by the authors. It ensures that the arguments provided by the authors are evidence-based, objective, and properly referenced. Academic writing also ensures that authors use appropriate structure and framework to report on the methodology and empirical outcomes, depending on the intent of the article. In this way, readers will be able to compare evidence between articles, generate summaries, and develop best practice guidelines. Crucially, academic writing is necessary for knowledge creation and dissemination. Researchers use academic writing to communicate findings, theories, and insights in a structured way, contributing to the growth in their respective fields. 

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

Dr. Lau: I have found that several characteristics must be present for academic writing to be critical. First, one’s writing must be contextualized. Authors must always analyze and understand the context within which the evidence is produced and how the evidence should be adopted or applied in the context of the author. The author must understand the necessary demographics, clinical features, or cultural characteristics that produced the evidence in question, and then stake a claim whether the results are relevant. This aspect also helps the author understand the limitations of their own research and findings. Second, the authors must discuss the findings of the research with the implications in mind. These may be clinical implications or implications on practice or policy. As such, one must refrain from simply describing the findings of the study. The discussion section in manuscripts allows authors to engage multiple perspectives from different sources, integrate ideas and theories, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their own findings before developing their own thesis on how research findings add to present knowledge and understanding. Lastly, from an educator’s perspective, critical writing should always involve the author engaging in reflexivity. The author should always be self-aware and reflective on one’s role as a writer and researcher, and how one’s personal biases, perspectives, and experiences influence the analysis and interpretation. This allows for producing balanced arguments, deeper analysis, greater ethical consideration of methodology and implications, and enhanced objectivity during discussion.

TAU: Is there any interesting story during academic writing that you would like to share with us?

Dr. Lau: Most recently, I undertook a qualitative study for the first time under the MHPE program. This was my first attempt at organizing and moderating focus group discussions. Where most of the clinical research that I undertook in the past had emphasized quantitative research, this was most certainly a daunting experience. Assisted by my supervisor and armed with qualitative study reference texts, I set out to perform the focus group discussions and write up the findings and discussions. I am grateful that the thesis had sufficient academic rigor to pass the internal exams committee, and I now look forward to attempting to pass peer review for the formal publication of the findings of this study.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Daniel S. Elliott

Dr. Daniel S. Elliott is a Professor of Urology at the Mayo Clinic College in Rochester, MN. He completed his urologic training at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester and a fellowship trained in Voiding Dysfunction and Neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. His main focus of research is on male voiding dysfunction and male stress urinary incontinence. He has performed over 2,000 artificial sphincter procedures and published over 75 peer-reviewed manuscripts on artificial urinary sphincter. He also specializes in vaginal mesh complications.    

Dr. Elliott emphasizes the necessity of aggressive and high-quality research and manuscripts for doctors to progress in their field. Without continued research and questioning of currently accepted knowledge and medical-decision algorithms, they will never progress and improve the care they provide for humanity.

To ensure that one’s research is critical, Dr. Elliott believes the researcher must be a thorough reader of the current medical literature. By doing this, the researcher will have a more advanced knowledge base and produce manuscripts that are timely and not redundant. In other words, good ideas for research projects are grown in a “fertile” and well-informed mind. The basics of any good manuscript should be that it answers a question that has never been asked and solves a problem that needs to be solved. He adds, “The more a researcher reads, attends meetings, and participates in academic discussions, the more they will be able to produce relevant subjects.”

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Eric Chung

Dr. Eric Chung holds professorial academic appointments at the University of Queensland in Brisbane and Macquarie University Hospital in Sydney, Australia. He holds numerous executive positions in various organizations such as President-elect of the International Society of Sexual Medicine (ISSM), Chair of the Education and Research Office on Sexual Medicine (EROS) at the Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine (APSSM) and Chair of the male LUTS section for the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ). He serves as an Advisor on the Panel of Clinical Experts (PoCE) for the Australian Government Department of Health. He is recognized as a leader in the field of male sexual, urinary, and reproduction, and has extensive research initiatives in the field of novel technology and prosthetic reconstruction.

Dr. Chung regards a paper that critically appraises the literature, has solid fundamentals, and stands the test of time in the literature as good academic writing. Besides, he advocates that applying a “SWOT” type of critical writing and providing a balanced view of the topic can avoid biases in writing.

“Scientific progress is built on hard work and innovation. It is important to constantly challenge contemporary knowledge and to think outside the box for innovative scientific breakthroughs. Every article adds a little more to the literature and everyone can contribute to advancing scientific progress,” says Dr. Chung.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Jeissen Pyo

Jeissen Pyo is a third-year medical student at McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas and he is interested in pursuing a career in urology. He is currently working on research projects related to men’s sexual health, prostate cancer, fertility, and general urologic practice. Although he is still uncertain about the scope of urologic practice he would like to pursue in the future, he has been enjoying the process of learning and becoming more exposed to the many different avenues he will have as a urologist.

Pyo believes that a good academic paper is one that is easy to read and easy to follow. It should use easily understandable language and minimize unnecessary jargon so that readers with different backgrounds and levels of expertise can comprehend the study's goals and implications. Additionally, a good paper should also be centered around a clear question or hypothesis and be clinically applicable.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Jay Simhan

Dr. Jay Simhan is Vice Chair and Professor of Urology at Temple Health and Fox Chase Cancer Center, where he also directs the Male Reconstruction and Prosthetic Urology Fellowship. He serves on the Executive Management Team of the Fox Chase – Temple Urologic Institute. He is the Fellowship Committee Chair for the Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS), where he also holds a Board position. He earned his medical degree from UNC-Chapel Hill, completed a Urology residency at Temple, and pursued fellowship training in Urologic Trauma, Reconstruction, and Prosthetics at UT Southwestern. His clinical practice focuses on urethral strictures, penile implants, male incontinence surgery, and urologic reconstruction. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, including the definitive chapter on lower urinary tract trauma in Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. He is an international speaker and proctor recognized for his expertise in urologic reconstruction and prosthetics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Simhan thinks academic writing is essential to advancing the field of medicine and science. While innovation and breakthroughs often begin in the minds of brilliant individuals, it is through the dissemination of knowledge that these ideas are put into practice and refined. Academic writing serves as the foundation for sharing discoveries, developing evidence-based practices, and ultimately improving patient outcomes. It provides a rigorous platform to validate findings and enables global collaboration, ensuring that patients worldwide can benefit from the latest advancements in healthcare.

Dr. Simhan believes an author must be insightful, comprehensive, and meticulous in their approach. They need to be curious and creative, willing to explore uncharted territory while adhering to the highest standards of rigor and accuracy. In his opinion, it is also crucial for an author to possess a clear and organized mind to present complex ideas in an accessible manner. Collaboration is key, as is the perseverance to continually refine their work.

“Balancing clinical responsibilities with academic writing is undoubtedly a challenge, but it comes down to prioritization and discipline. I find that setting aside dedicated blocks of time - whether it’s early mornings, weekends, or during quieter periods - helps maintain momentum on writing projects. Surrounding myself with a supportive team is also key. Collaborating with colleagues and trainees not only distributes the workload but also brings fresh perspectives to my work,” says Dr. Simhan.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Ross A. Cartmill

Dr. Ross A. Cartmill graduated in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Queensland in 1968. He trained in Post Graduate Surgery at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane gaining his Fellowship of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 1974. He subsequently trained at the Whittington Hospital London U.K. and served as a Fellow at Baylor College of Medicine with Dr. F. Brantley Scott leading to his focus on Urological Prosthetic Surgery. After returning to Brisbane, he joined the clinical staff at Princess Alexandra Hospital, introducing Urological Prosthetic Surgery while accepting various professional and community leadership roles including National and International urological societies. He has been honored with the receiving of professional awards culminating with the awarding of the Order of Australia Medal in 2019. He has presented or published many papers on Urinary Incontinence, Erectile Dysfunction, and the application of Prosthetic Surgery in the management of these disorders. His emphasis has been on the use of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter in the management of female urinary incontinence after the failure of multiple surgical interventions.

In Dr. Cartmill’s view, the first requirement is for the aims of the paper to be clearly stated. Assuming the paper is reporting research, the methodology needs to be explained so that the author's interpretation of the results is readily understood. The paper needs to have a summary of the conclusions with an outline of the expected future application of the newly acquired knowledge.

Dr. Cartmill thinks the author should have shown an in-depth knowledge of the subject of the paper before publishing any further research. The author would therefore be a recognised leader in the research and clinical application of the subject being discussed in any new publication. A history of accurate reporting of any data and a dedication to improving the quality of patient care are paramount in the characteristics of a respected author.

“TAU is an established peer-reviewed scientific journal with strong brand recognition among basic science, academic, and clinical researchers. This journal publishes interesting and unique translational and multi-disciplinary research, often different from conventional Urology and Andrology journals. It provides practical applications that are of real interest to readers,” says Dr. Cartmill.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Ryan P. Smith

Dr. Ryan P. Smith serves as an Associate Professor of Urology at the University of Virginia, specializing in Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery with a focus on both clinical practice and research. He attended the University of Virginia School of Medicine for medical school and completed his Urology residency there as well. He subsequently completed a fellowship in Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine with Dr. Larry Lipshultz. He joined the faculty at the University of Virginia in 2013 where he serves as the Co-Director of the Andrology Fellowship, the Urology Residency Program Director, and the Medical Student Clerkship Director. He was previously selected by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine as a CREST Scholar and was a traveling scholar for the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction as well as the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology. His clinical practice is split between an academic setting at UVA Health and Virginia Fertility & IVF, a private IVF clinic, giving him a broad perspective on fertility care. His research focus pertains to the clinical evaluation of male infertility and sperm-egg interaction. His collaborative research with Dr. Jeff Lysiak on the role of phosphatidylserine in sperm-egg fusion was published in Nature Communications and is currently being developed as a new diagnostic test for fertilization competent sperm. He was previously nominated for the AUA Early Career Research Showcase in 2020 for his male infertility research. He has been an invited speaker at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American Urological Association and has published extensively within the field of male reproductive medicine. His passion is serving others in their fertility journey and advancing the field of male reproductive medicine and surgery. He serves on the boards of the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society of Reproductive Surgeons.

In Dr. Smith’s view, research is an opportunity to push our field forward and make a positive impact on populations of patients. One should consider the gaps in our current medical knowledge and the questions that need to be answered to close those gaps. This is how researchers identify the difference between their current knowledge, skills, and/or practice and what is the desired best practice. In addition, it allows them to conduct a needs assessment of where they can most positively impact patient care. Researchers assess where the current limitations or problems are in clinical practice and where there are opportunities for improvement. Without high-quality research, medicine is stagnant instead of flexible and innovative.

Dr. Smith emphasizes that authors should thoroughly review existing literature during their preparation. It is important to understand the gaps in our current knowledge and how one’s research helps to fill in those gaps. One should consider the main aims of the study at the outset and compose a thesis or hypothesis statement. It is generally advisable to start with an outline prior to drafting the manuscript. It is helpful to have a working knowledge of statistics or have some statistical support. The conclusion should be well supported by the results and the authors should acknowledge the limitations of the research. There are always limitations to what they can conclude and what variables they can control for in research.

“Research is a team sport. My subspecialty focus is on male infertility and I am fortunate to work with some very innovative researchers. This includes a passionate group of Ph.D, statisticians, medical trainees, and many others. Many times early-career investigators start out thinking that our own efforts can see research to the finish line, but behind every great manuscript is a tireless team who hopes to benefit the care of the people we serve,” says Dr. Smith.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)