In 2025, many JHMHP 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)
Steven S. Coughlin, Augusta University, USA
Arul Earnest, Monash University, Australia
Geoffrey A. Silvera, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA
Carol Nash, University of Toronto, Canada
Yo Han Lee, The Korea University College of Medicine, Korea
Roland Shapley Jr, Texas State University, USA
Amirah Azzeri, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Malaysia
Bo Peng, The University of Maryland, USA
Joshua M. Liao, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA
Kim Jørgensen, Roskilde University, Denmark
Arjun Teotia, Michigan State University, USA
Dara Hall, The University of Delaware, USA
Khin Cho Aye, The University of Community Health, Myanmar
Milan Toma, The New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, USA
Sérgio Alexandre Farias Pereira, The Polytechnic University, Portugal
Tarik Wasfie, Michigan State University, USA
Soichiro Saeki, The National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Japan
Outstanding Author
Steven S. Coughlin
Steven S. Coughlin, PhD, is a Professor of Epidemiology at Augusta University in Augusta, Georgia, USA. He has a broad background in public health and clinical research. As a faculty member at Georgetown University, he participated in the planning and conduct of community-based behavioral intervention research involving African American residents of the District of Columbia. While being a faculty member at Tulane University, Dr. Coughlin planned and conducted community-based research on the early detection of breast and cervical cancer in diverse communities in rural southern Louisiana. During the eleven years that he was a senior epidemiologist at the CDC in Atlanta, he participated in numerous collaborative studies on cancer of the breast, cervix, colon, and ovary. While being a senior epidemiologist at the VA Office of Public Health in Washington, DC, he was principal investigator of the Follow-up Study of a National Cohort of Gulf War and Gulf War Veterans (n=30,000 men and women) and coinvestigator of the National Health Study for a New Generation of US Veterans (n=60,000). In his current position at Augusta University, Dr. Coughlin was coinvestigator of Cancer Health Awareness through screeNinG and Education (CHANGE) for Public Housing Residents and a coinvestigator of Obesity-related Disparities in the Bidirectional Risk of Cardiovascular disease and Cancer. Learn more about him here.
JHMHP: What are the key skill sets of an author?
Dr. Coughlin: Academic writing involves drafting a well-structured manuscript that is free of spelling and grammar errors. With academic writing, manuscripts are structured in a way that enables peers and collaborators to quickly assimilate the information. When I teach graduate students how to prepare a journal article, I discuss the organization of manuscripts (title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, tables, and figures). I also provide tips for how to devote time to writing. For example, it can be helpful to block out time on your calendar for writing activities and to get away from e-mail or other distractions. In addition, authors must review the literature by performing bibliographic searches and summarize what is already known about a topic and what the gaps in the literature are.
However, I believe that the most important skill for academic writing is creativity and the ability to come up with a good idea to write about. I find that reviewing new articles published in key journals is helpful for formulating new writing ideas. I also review conference proceedings and survey questionnaires (for example, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey questionnaires) and think about research questions that can be examined using available data. The most successful articles test new research hypotheses and help to fill in the scientific evidence base about the causes of health and disease and possible preventive measures. In this way, creativity goes hand-in-hand with originality, and the best articles advance our understanding of a scientific topic and find new solutions to a problem.
JHMHP: How to avoid biases in one’s writing?
Dr. Coughlin: Bias in scientific writing, including systematic errors that skew the results, interpretation, or presentation of research findings, can occur at various stages of the research process, from study design and data collection to analysis and publication. In order to minimize such problems, I disclose potential conflicts of interest such as sources of research funding. In addition, I specify research questions and hypotheses in advance, prior to analyzing the data. One of the potential problems in scientific writing is that authors tend to publish positive research findings, which can lead to the exclusion of studies with small sample sizes or negative results. This can lead to systematic bias in literature reviews and meta-analyses. To avoid such problems, we strive to publish studies regardless of whether the findings are positive or negative.
JHMHP: Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Coughlin: I spend a lot of time writing study proposals that include information about the significance of the proposed research, its originality or novelty, and the methods that will be employed. Although many proposals are not funded, the information that goes into the background and significance section of the proposal can often be edited and expanded into a review article or commentary. In this way, scientific writing completed as part of research proposals can lead to new publications on important health topics.
Part of my motivation from publishing journal articles and books is the pleasure of knowing that my creative works have been found to be useful by others. I authored Case Studies in Public Health Ethics, which was published by the American Public Health Association. It has been a popular textbook in graduate courses. One student told me that after she read my book she decided to pursue a career in public health. I periodically check Google Scholar to see how many of my publications have been referenced in other works. For example, my article on Recall Bias in Epidemiologic Studies, which was published by the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, has been referenced by other authors for more than 1,569 times.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Arul Earnest
Prof. Arul Earnest is the deputy head of the Clinical Outcomes data Reporting and Research Program (CORRP) and the Biostatistics Unit in the School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine at Monash University, Australia. He has authored a textbook, three book chapters, over 250 publications in peer-reviewed international journals and attracted grant funding with a total value of ~A$22million. His research is globally recognized, with engagements like the International Society of Bayesian Analysis Conference and the World Congress of Epidemiology. He leads a data science team of 4 data analysts and 7 PhD students, with a research focus on Bayesian spatio-temporal models and machine learning techniques, showcasing his commitment to advancing healthcare methodologies in the area of big data and clinical registries. Follow Prof. Earnest on LinkedIn, Google Scholar and his homepage.
A good academic paper, according to Prof. Earnest, is one that has a clear hypothesis and answers an important question using a clear, well-structured approach. It should be based on solid research, explain the background of the topic, and use reliable methods to analyze data. The findings should be presented in a logical way, with strong evidence to support them. To him, a great paper does not just share results—it also explains why they matter and how they can be applied in real life, whether in research, healthcare, or policy-making. He tries to keep his papers focused along these lines, whether it is to help policy-makers identify geographical regions with excessive high risk of disease mortality or to partner regulators in identifying problematic breast implants using an early warning statistical tool.
One of the biggest challenges in academic writing Prof. Earnest finds is making complex ideas easy to understand while still keeping the scientific details accurate. He believes this is especially true in the field of Biostatistics. Researchers need to explain their work in a way that both experts and non-experts can follow. It can also be tough to structure a paper so that it flows smoothly from one section to the next, especially when dealing with lots of data and technical concepts. Another challenge is responding to feedback from reviewers, which requires careful revisions without losing the original message of the research. Despite these difficulties, he finds academic writing exciting because it allows researchers to share new knowledge, challenge existing ideas, and contribute to meaningful progress in their fields, while at the same time ensuring rigor in research through independent peer review.
“Academic writing is fascinating because it allows researchers to contribute new knowledge that can have a real impact on science, healthcare, and society. It is a way to share discoveries, challenge existing ideas, and push the boundaries of what we know. There is a certain structured flow to academic writing (e.g. background, methods, results, conclusions, discussion) and there are also excellent flowcharts (e.g. STROBE and CONSORT statements) which allow for consistency, so that others can easily follow and understand the described research,” says Prof. Earnest.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Geoffrey A. Silvera
Geoffrey A. Silvera, PhD, MHA, is an expert in patient-focused transformation. His research focuses on helping healthcare organizations develop and establish inclusive, innovative, and impactful solutions. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Services Administration at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and serves on the editorial board of Quality Management in Health Care as well as Associate Editor for the Patient Experience Journal.He also serves as director of the Health Equity Leadership Academy, a program that prepares students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed in graduate programs in health professions. His research examines strategic leadership in healthcare, patient experience, health equity, digital transformation, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Follow Dr. Silvera on LinkedIn and his homepage.
JHMHP: What role does academic writing play in science?
Dr. Silvera: Academic writing is our primary way as scholars to communicate our findings to the academic community. While research conferences and public media play a role as well, academic writing is distinct in that it is enduring. It aids in the iterative nature of science and allows scholars to ensure that their findings are novel and interesting and helps to establish a collective body of evidence. As well, the peer-review process in academic publishing ensures that all claims and methods have been scrutinized by other scholars to ensure the quality of the work. As a result, peer-reviewed publications are the most highly-certified publication outlets available.
JHMHP: How to ensure one’s writing is critical?
Dr. Silvera: The critical nature of academic writing is essential to contributing. Before anyone can make a claim that they have contributed to the literature, they need to first understand what has already been done. So, I would suggest, the first necessary step is to be familiar with the literature even before you establish your research question. Almost as essential, in my view, is to ensure that the results of your study might have real world implications. Therefore, before I engage in any work, I ask myself two questions: 1) Do we know this already? This requires checking to see if there is already an established evidence base existing in the peer-reviewed literature. 2) What information might aid decision-makers to make better decisions or have better outcomes? This is where the work is. It requires some familiarity with practice to know what burning questions practitioners have and whether there is a good source of data to analyze or context to examine.
JHMHP: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Silvera: IRB approval, or some level of ethical approval is essential for research. I live in a state that has witnessed gross atrocities in the absence of these processes. Curiosity in the absence of ethical rigor can be dangerous. If this and similar processes were omitted, not only would research produce more biased and therefore less reliable results, but the result of conducting unethical work could have enduring negative effects on research subjects, their families, and their communities. The IRB processes ensure that while research is novel and impactful, it is not producing outsized negative effects in the knowledge creation process.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Carol Nash
Dr. Carol Nash is a Scholar in Residence in the History of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. Her research interests are investigating self-directed learning, consensus decision-making, burnout, and psychological flow from the perspective of historical narrative research. Her recent projects regard various matters concerning these topics, especially the impact of COVID-19. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Nash thinks academic writing permits the timely dissemination of scholarly research after peer review, meeting the particular specifications of a journal’s editors and giving other scholars access to this research. She always ensures her writing is up-to-date by conducting frequently published scoping reviews on various topics and acting as a peer reviewer to eighty-three international journals.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Yo Han Lee
Dr. Yo Han Lee is a professor at the Korea University College of Medicine and Graduate School of Public Health in South Korea. His primary research areas include mental health, global health, and health policy. One of his key focuses is on healthcare quality—specifically, how to ensure high standards of care while maintaining financial and systemic sustainability in the Korean healthcare system. He has been involved in several national research projects addressing these challenges. Recently, he has also been studying the impact of healthcare service disruptions caused by mass resignations of young physicians in Korea, exploring how these gaps affect patients and population health.
In Dr. Lee’s view, academic writing serves as a shared language through which researchers communicate with the world. Just as politicians have their rhetoric and soldiers have their codes, scholars use this structured form of expression to exchange ideas. What makes academic writing meaningful is not the formality itself but the spirit of inquiry behind it. True academic writing requires neutrality and objectivity, grounded in the mindset of a genuine seeker of knowledge. Predetermined conclusions or bias-driven arguments, without critical self-reflection, do not qualify as scholarly work. Instead, approaching each subject from a place of uncertainty—questioning, critiquing, and exploring from the ground up—is the essence of academic writing.
Dr. Lee thinks the heart of academic writing lies in questioning, critiquing, and challenging assumptions. It is not merely about writing skills; it is about developing and presenting ideas through robust critical thinking. Researchers must cultivate a habit of constant critique—not only of others’ work but also of their own. This ability to critically examine and refine ideas is what shapes meaningful academic contributions.
“I would like to emphasize the role of generative AI and large language models. I believe these tools should be actively utilized in research. Fundamentally, research is about “re-searching”—systematically reviewing existing knowledge—and these technologies excel at that process. Using AI tools aligns with the core of research, which involves identifying gaps in existing literature and addressing them through scholarly writing. However, the key lies in how researchers engage with these tools: not by passively accepting the outputs, but by applying their expertise and critical judgment to evaluate and reshape the results. In this era, critical thinking is more essential than ever. The outputs of AI may appear polished, but their true value emerges only when combined with human expertise and critique,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Roland Shapley Jr
Dr. Roland Shapley Jr is an Assistant Professor of Instruction at Texas State University’s School of Health Administration with extensive experience in healthcare leadership and strategic management. Before academia, he served as the CEO of a national medical supply company specializing in nursing home medical devices, where he cultivated skills in strategic planning, regulatory compliance, and team leadership. His recent research, published in the Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy, analyzes the impact of the Patient-Driven Payment Model (PDPM) and COVID-19 on staffing in skilled nursing facilities. Passionate about bridging practical industry expertise with innovative teaching practices, he strives to prepare students with real-world skills and emphasize mentorship and lifelong learning. He holds a Doctor of Science in Healthcare Leadership from UAB, an MBA from Christian Brothers University, and graduate certificates from Harvard and MIT Sloan. Outside work, he enjoys hiking, music, and caring for his rescue dogs.
JHMHP: Why do we need academic writing?
Dr. Shapley Jr: Academic writing is essential because it compels individuals to develop deep expertise, often through extensive fieldwork and years of detailed investigation, to fully understand complex issues, such as those found within the healthcare industry. It encourages unbiased evaluation, inviting critical exploration of contrarian ideas and alternative ideologies that challenge mainstream assumptions. In healthcare, specifically, academic writing allows professionals to question established practices, propose innovative solutions, and rigorously assess diverse perspectives to ultimately advance patient care and policy effectiveness. The primary importance of academic writing lies in its commitment to safeguarding the accuracy, credibility, and ethical dissemination of knowledge. This is especially crucial in healthcare, where misinformation or poorly framed narratives—often amplified by emerging AI algorithms and untrained individuals—can have significant consequences on public health and clinical practice. Academic writing ensures accountability through meticulous sourcing, clear documentation, and transparent methodologies, empowering healthcare professionals and policymakers to make informed, evidence-based decisions.
JHMHP: Data sharing has been prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think authors must share their research data?
Dr. Shapley Jr: To me, the question of whether researchers should share data isn’t a simple yes-or-no issue; it demands careful consideration of various complex factors. Privacy, ethical responsibilities, and legal constraints significantly complicate data sharing, especially within healthcare research. Sensitive information, such as patient records, genomic data, and clinical results, must be diligently safeguarded to protect confidentiality and ensure compliance with regulatory standards like HIPAA. Mishandling such data poses risks to participants and could result in breaches of trust or legal repercussions. Alternatively, a contrarian perspective strongly supports increased data sharing, emphasizing its benefits in promoting transparency, allowing independent verification of findings, and encouraging collaboration across disciplines. Enhanced openness accelerates innovation, boosts public trust, and improves accountability in scientific research. Ultimately, researchers must thoughtfully navigate this delicate balance between openness and privacy protection, ensuring the integrity of academic research while responsibly managing sensitive data.
JHMHP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?
Dr. Shapley Jr: To all academic writers committed to advancing scientific knowledge and improving our healthcare system: your rigorous research, insightful analyses, and commitment to scholarly excellence are shaping the future of patient care and health systems worldwide. Each contribution you make strengthens evidence-based practice, improves healthcare delivery, and inspires innovation in medicine and policy. Continue your vital work—your impact resonates profoundly in building a healthier tomorrow.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Amirah Azzeri
Dr. Amirah Azzeri is a public health researcher specialising in health economics, hospital management, and policy. She holds an MPH from the University of Sydney and a doctorate in Public Health with specialisation in Health Economics from the University of Malaya. She is currently a lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, USIM, and also works as a visiting health economist and honorary statistics consultant at UM and UMMC. She is an active member of professional bodies, including MAHEA, PCSI, APACPH, and MAHTAS. Her expertise spans health policy, economic modelling, epidemiology, and biostatistics. She has authored over 50 publications and secured more than 30 research grants. A dedicated academic, she supervises 12 postgraduate students and has received over 15 national and international awards. Her work bridges research and real-world health system improvements, contributing to evidence-based policy and education. Her leadership continues to influence public health both locally and globally.
JHMHP: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Dr. Azzeri: One of the biggest challenges in academic writing is to structure complex information clearly, concisely, and logically, especially when it comes to multidisciplinary topics such as hospital management and health policy. This is especially true in areas such as health economics, clinical coding, and health policy, where jargon may be unfamiliar to clinicians. Translating this type of content into clear and scientifically accurate language can be challenging. In addition, researchers often struggle to maintain a formal academic tone while ensuring that the content remains relevant and applicable in practice. For clinical researchers and academicians like myself, who have to juggle their clinical duties with their research activities, plus teaching and administration tasks, time constraints arise that can delay the writing process. Overcoming writer’s block and staying motivated during long research and revision cycles are other persistent hurdles in producing high-quality scientific papers.
JHMHP: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis? What do authors have to bear in mind during the process?
Dr. Azzeri: The selection of appropriate evidence starts with formulating a clear research question and establishing defined inclusion criteria aligned with the study’s objectives. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, and solid data from credible sources. Assessing the credibility, relevance, and timeliness of individual sources is crucial. Authors should apply a structured framework for transparent reporting and remain vigilant for potential bias in the studies included. Objectivity must be maintained in the synthesis, and over-interpretation or selective reporting must be avoided. Tools such as reference managers and data abstraction tables can simplify the organisation and analysis of evidence. I believe that reading well-conducted studies, consulting experienced mentors, and following appropriate methodological guidelines are essential for high-quality synthesis and reporting. Familiarity with the data and analytical approach also empowers authors to interpret outputs correctly and draw accurate conclusions, ultimately strengthening the research’s reliability and impact.
JHMHP: Why do you choose to publish in JHMHP?
Dr. Azzeri: JHMHP offers a specialised platform for publishing research at the intersection of healthcare delivery, system efficiency, and policy-making—areas that align closely with my academic and professional focus. I consider the journal highly relevant for health economics and healthcare systems, particularly with practical implications for countries like Malaysia. Its readership, which includes healthcare managers, policymakers, and scholars, matches the target audience I aim to reach with my work. I also appreciate the journal’s dual emphasis on practice and policy, making it an ideal venue for applied research that seeks to improve hospital operations and health system performance. The submission process is smooth, and communication with the editorial team has been supportive and efficient. I regularly read papers published in this journal and often recommend it to colleagues as a valuable outlet for disseminating impactful, policy-relevant health research.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Bo Peng
Dr. Bo Peng is a Postdoctoral Fellow at The University of Maryland School of Medicine. His research focuses on the intersection of artificial intelligence, statistical modeling, and healthcare analytics. He specializes in applying machine learning, graph neural networks, and advanced time series analysis to address complex problems in healthcare and engineering. His recent projects include developing an ensemble tree learning framework with intelligent feature selection to predict hospital length of stay and creating a vector visibility graph–based graph attention network for rare event detection in industrial systems. He has published peer-reviewed journal articles, presented at major conferences such as IISE and INFORMS, and actively collaborated across disciplines. His work seeks to bridge theory and application, delivering interpretable and impactful solutions that enhance decision-making in both healthcare and industrial domains.
In Dr. Peng’s view, academic writing is essential for transforming research into knowledge that can be shared, evaluated, and built upon by the scientific community. It is not just a means of reporting findings but a structured way to communicate ideas with precision, clarity, and credibility. Well-written academic work ensures that methodologies are transparent, results are reproducible, and implications are understood by both specialists and interdisciplinary audiences. It also plays a critical role in securing funding, influencing policy, and guiding practice. For researchers, academic writing is a bridge between innovation and real-world application, turning raw data and insights into contributions that advance a field. Without rigorous academic writing, even groundbreaking research risks being overlooked, misinterpreted, or undervalued, limiting its ability to generate impact and inspire further exploration.
Dr. Peng thinks that critical writing goes beyond summarizing existing knowledge, evaluating evidence, identifying gaps, and constructing well-supported arguments. To ensure writing is critical, he first establishes a clear research question or perspective that drives the analysis. He integrates literature review with synthesis, not merely listing studies but comparing methods, highlighting limitations, and identifying gaps. Data and results are interpreted in the context of existing theories, questioning assumptions and considering alternative explanations. He also explicitly discusses the strengths and weaknesses of his own work, linking findings to broader implications and potential future directions. Using precise language, strong logical flow, and evidence-backed claims helps maintain academic rigor. Finally, he highlights that peer feedback is invaluable, as it challenges blind spots and refines the argumentation, ensuring the final work is both analytically robust and intellectually engaging.
“When I began my PhD journey, my academic writing was often criticized for being overly report-like—listing facts without strong connections, smooth transitions, or clear emphasis on the study’s contributions. Determined to improve, I attended academic writing bootcamps, studied videos, sought help from professional writers, and committed to writing at least one paper each semester with extensive feedback. This effort paid off during the review of my Prediction of Hospital Length of Stay paper, which initially faced detailed critiques on defining patient populations, explaining data sources, and emphasizing clinical relevance. I addressed these by expanding dataset descriptions, framing feature importance in clinical terms, and adding real-world operational implications while acknowledging limitations. The revised manuscript was accepted with only minor revisions, marking a turning point where my writing became not just technically sound but also clear, connected, and impactful for diverse audiences. Thus, continuous improvement is the key,” says Dr. Peng.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Joshua M. Liao
Joshua M. Liao, MD, MSc, is an internationally recognized health systems expert and physician leader at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. There, he is a Professor with Tenure and the Walter Family Distinguished Chair in Internal Medicine, as well as Professor of Health Economics, Systems, and Policy. He additionally serves as the Chief of the William T. and Gay F. Solomon Division of General Internal Medicine, the director of research methods for the Clinical & Translational Science Program, and the principal investigator of the Program on Policy Evaluation and Learning. His research focuses on innovative policies and practices in health care payment, delivery, and decision-making to enhance health outcomes. He serves as an active national advisor to national and regional policymakers and is a distinguished academic physician with over 330 publications. He has a successful history of securing grants and contracts totaling over $15 million. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Liao’s view, academic writing is essential for advancing medicine and policy transparently and rigorously. This type of writing serves many purposes: documenting evidence, articulating viewpoints, enabling peer review to promote rigor and clarity, and building a shared foundation of knowledge, among others. Academic writing also provides a platform to share perspectives outside those primarily driven by commercial or organizational motivations, or to clearly frame perspectives that originate from them. That independence can help engender trust in academic insights and findings.
Dr. Liao thinks that authors should combine intellectual curiosity with clear, structured thinking. They require precision in language and honesty in interpretation, communicating implications and limitations clearly when possible, and within context and caveats when necessary. A strong academic author is both a critical thinker and a deliberate storyteller.
Speaking of the preparation for writing, Dr. Liao shares that he leans heavily on systems. Routinizing what he can—like using structured processes and strategies—helps conserve cognitive energy for the parts of academic writing that require deep, original thought. He also separates writing from editing: they are fundamentally different processes. Writing is about getting ideas down without judgment; editing is where clarity and precision emerge. Trying to do both at once creates friction and slows progress. By building habits around structure and sequencing writing and editing, he makes writing more sustainable amid competing demands.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Kim Jørgensen
Dr. Kim Jørgensen is an Assistant Professor at the Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University. His research focuses on user involvement, recovery, and cross-sector collaboration in mental health care, with a strong emphasis on improving care for vulnerable groups. He has authored more than 30 peer-reviewed articles, edited multiple books, and serves as Editor-in-Chief for Nordic Nursing Research. Recent projects include developing recovery-oriented care frameworks, integrating mental health and oncology services, and resilience-building programs for children of parents with mental illness or substance use problems. He combines extensive clinical, leadership, and academic experience, having served in psychiatric nursing, social mental healthcare, and higher education for over two decades. His work bridges theory and practice, fostering innovative, evidence-based solutions in complex healthcare systems. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Jørgensen believes that a good academic paper makes a clear and original contribution to knowledge. It is grounded in relevant theory, demonstrates methodological rigor, and is transparent in its reasoning. The writing should be concise yet comprehensive, guiding the reader through a logical flow from problem statement to conclusion. Importantly, it should connect findings to practical implications, allowing research to inform policy, practice, or further inquiry.
In Dr. Jørgensen’s view, avoiding bias requires reflexivity—being aware of one’s own assumptions, values, and perspectives. Engaging with diverse sources, including those that challenge one’s position, strengthens objectivity. Using transparent methodology, clear definitions, and triangulation of data helps minimize selective interpretation. Peer review and collaboration with colleagues from different disciplines also provide critical perspectives that help uncover blind spots.
“Scientific progress relies on persistence, curiosity, and a willingness to embrace uncertainty. The journey of academic writing can be demanding, but each contribution adds a valuable piece to the collective understanding of our world. Stay committed to rigor, open dialogue, and collaboration—your work matters, both to your field and to the communities it serves,” says Dr. Jørgensen.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Arjun Teotia
Arjun Teotia, PhD, is an Assistant Scientist at Henry Ford Health and Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, specializing in health economics at the nexus of healthcare delivery, policy, and technology. His work spans hospital consolidation, mental-health and suicide-prevention economics, AI tools in health care, and value-based care in high-cost markets. He applies microeconomics, quasi-experimental design, and structural models to quantify the impact of health policy, demonstrating over $400 million in public-sector savings from county health-insurance reforms in California. A principal investigator on funded projects from foundations like The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, he is deeply committed to translating economic evidence into policy and operational action.
JHMHP: Why is academic writing important?
Dr. Teotia: Academic writing is the transmission mechanism for policy reform. It transforms econometric evidence into organized knowledge that can guide decisions at the federal, state, and health system levels. Clear writing is essential because it documents assumptions, methods, and identification strategies in a reproducible way. This discipline strengthens the credibility of findings and ensures that evidence is usable for policy, practice, and implementation. Academic writing is the channel through which rigorous analysis becomes actionable information for decision makers who allocate resources, design programs, and shape systems of care.
JHMHP: What qualities should an author possess?
Dr. Teotia: A strong author needs analytical clarity, methodological discipline, and a policy-oriented lens. Clarity ensures that complex ideas, data structures, and econometric strategies are communicated in a way that is interpretable across audiences. Methodological discipline means being transparent about limitations, identification concerns, and the precise meaning of estimates. A policy-oriented lens provides economic meaning to the findings and links the results to decisions at the federal, state, and system level, which is the ultimate goal of academic research. Finally, an effective author revises repeatedly, understands the expectations of peer reviewers, and treats the writing process as part of the scientific workflow that requires continuous refinement.
JHMHP: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Teotia: In execution-driven fields like health services research, writing is central to creating value. I treat writing as a repeated process of drafting, reviewing, and refining rather than something reserved for the end of a project. I block dedicated writing times and use them to iteratively strengthen each section of the manuscript. Each sentence must convey meaning and help the reader comprehend the logic, evidence, and implications of the study. I build outlines while analyses are ongoing, incorporate feedback from coauthors, and revisit drafts with fresh eyes after breaks to ensure clarity. I also prioritize integrating the most substantive comments from referees, since their insights are core to producing a strong manuscript. This incremental and structured approach ensures writing aligns with the evolving logic of the research, producing a coherent, rigorous, and useful final product for its intended audience.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Dara Hall
Dara Hall, PhD(c), RNC-NIC, is a PhD candidate in Nursing Science at the University of Delaware and the Maternal & Child Health Director at Delaware First Health. Her research focuses on maternal and infant health, with particular emphasis on diaper need as a social determinant of health and the impact of diaper coverage policies. She is leading an exploratory qualitative case study evaluating Delaware’s Medicaid diaper benefit, examining stakeholder perspectives, policy implementation, and opportunities to strengthen access for families. Across her work, she centers the lived experiences of caregivers and emphasizes the importance of grounding policy in real-world contexts rather than theoretical assumptions. With an extensive clinical background in neonatal and perinatal care, education, and maternal–child health leadership across both state Medicaid and managed care, her broader interests include addressing material hardship, supporting families, and advancing evidence-informed, actionable health policies that improve maternal and child outcomes.
In Dr. Hall’s view, a good academic paper is rigorous, clearly written, and grounded in strong methodology, but it must also be applicable to the real world. Research should not exist in isolation; it should meaningfully inform practice, policy, or future inquiry. In health policy research, especially Medicaid, applicability is essential. Effective papers reflect the lived experiences of the individuals most affected by the policy and illuminate how systems function in practice, not just in theory. A strong paper synthesizes evidence, highlights gaps in current safety-net supports, and connects findings to actionable recommendations. It acknowledges limitations transparently and helps decision-makers understand why an issue matters, who is most affected, and how evidence can guide more equitable and effective interventions. Ultimately, a good academic paper drives change by bridging the gap between research and real-world impact, advancing knowledge while offering a clear pathway toward improving outcomes for the populations it addresses.
According to Dr. Hall, authors should have intellectual rigor, curiosity, and integrity, but they must also possess humility and a commitment to listening, especially when researching communities facing material hardship. In her work on diaper need, the most compelling insights came from recognizing lived experience as essential expertise. Effective authors ensure their research is grounded in the realities of the populations they study and strive to produce evidence that is not only accurate but applicable to policy and systems change. They must be able to synthesize complex data, identify gaps in the evidence, and communicate findings in a way that informs action. Above all, strong authors write with purpose: to elevate overlooked issues, strengthen the evidence base, and contribute to solutions that improve health outcomes.
“I chose to publish in JHMHP because the journal’s mission aligns closely with my focus on applied, policy-relevant research. My integrative review on diaper need identified clear associations between material hardship and adverse maternal and infant health outcomes, highlighting the inadequacy of current safety-net supports. JHMHP’s readership includes policymakers, program leaders, and clinicians who can use these findings to inform benefit design, strengthen family supports, and drive system change. The journal’s commitment to actionable scholarship makes it an ideal platform for research grounded in lived experience and focused on advancing equitable policy. Publishing here ensures that evidence about diaper need reaches the decision-makers who can transform it into improved outcomes for mothers, infants, and families,” says Dr. Hall.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Khin Cho Aye
Dr. Khin Cho Aye is a medical doctor specializing in public health. She holds M.B., B.S. and Master’s degrees in Preventive and Tropical Medicine. She currently works as a lecturer and head at the University of Community Health in Magway, while pursuing her PhD at the University of Public Health in Yangon. Her professional experience spans hospital settings, public health, and academic fields. Her primary research interests are mental health and reproductive health, while her clinical background has also guided her interest in hospital administration. As an academic, she teaches undergraduate medical students, alongside continuing her doctoral studies.
Dr. Aye highlights that each step of the research process is essential for producing a high-quality academic paper. The title should be both informative and engaging. The paper should establish the context, outline the research problem, and present well-defined objectives. A clear description of the research design, data collection, and analysis methods is also essential. Last but not least, the paper must include well-presented findings and a critical discussion.
In Dr. Aye’s view, authors should consider not only the academic integrity of the research but also the practical applicability of the findings when preparing an article. While positive results are important, negative findings should not be overlooked, as they also provide valuable insights and contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic.
“I would like to encourage researchers not to hesitate when it comes to publishing their work, as this is essential for developing and enhancing research skills. Conducting research is valuable, but if the findings are not published, they cannot be accessed or applied in practice, which diminishes their impact. Through research, we contribute to the advancement of new knowledge,” says Dr. Aye.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Milan Toma
Dr. Milan Toma, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM). His interdisciplinary research bridges clinical sciences, computational biomechanics, and artificial intelligence, with expertise in image processing, high-performance computing, and fluid-structure interactions in the human body. His recent projects focus on applying machine learning to orthopedic diagnostics, maternal-fetal health, cardiovascular disease, and traumatic brain injuries. He has led studies on AI-driven medical imaging, patient safety monitoring, and the impact of seizures on brain and fetal dynamics. Supported by grants and collaborative initiatives, he is dedicated to advancing healthcare outcomes through innovative research and education. He is the author of "The Economy of Distrust," which examines the historical and social roots of medical misinformation and suggests strategies for restoring public trust in science and medicine.
JHMHP: Why do we need academic writing?
Dr. Toma: Now more than ever, the responsibility of academic writers goes beyond simply sharing findings with the scholarly community. In a time when misinformation spreads quickly and research can be taken out of context or intentionally misrepresented, we must be aware of how our work might be misused by those looking to profit from spreading false information. It is essential not only to communicate our findings clearly, but also to proactively address in the discussion sections of our articles any potential for misinterpretation or abuse. By highlighting limitations, clarifying uncertainties, and explicitly outlining the correct context and applications of our results, we help prevent our work from being twisted or sensationalized. This approach protects the integrity of our research, supports public trust in science, and ensures that our contributions foster constructive, evidence-based dialogue rather than fueling confusion or controversy.
JHMHP: What are the qualities an author should possess?
Dr. Toma: Every author should possess not only intellectual curiosity, clarity of thought, and critical thinking, but also a strong sense of epistemic humility, i.e., the recognition of the limits of one’s own knowledge. This means being willing to admit when we do not have all the answers, acknowledging uncertainties, and being transparent about the boundaries of our findings. Epistemic humility is essential for honest scholarship and helps build trust with readers. However, in today’s algorithm-driven information landscape, our humility is often contrasted with voices that project false certainty. Unfortunately, audiences, influenced by algorithms, may gravitate toward those who confidently present oversimplified or absolute answers, even when such certainty is unwarranted. This creates a tension: while good science embraces nuance and doubt, ideological rigidity and the appearance of certainty can be more appealing and widely shared. As authors, we must resist this pressure, remaining open to new evidence and alternative perspectives, and continue to model humility and integrity in our writing.
JHMHP: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Toma: The burden of being a scientist or doctor is indeed heavy, with clinical, research, and teaching responsibilities often competing for our time. However, we are stewards of knowledge, and sharing our findings is how we contribute to the collective progress of science and medicine. Writing is a way to build our legacy, ensuring that our discoveries and insights endure beyond our own careers and benefit others. We are not motivated by the potential to profit from our ideas and discoveries. Instead, our motivation to write stems from a deep sense of responsibility. We are eager to share our insights, progress in our fields, and support others in building on our work.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Sérgio Alexandre Farias Pereira
Dr. Sérgio Alexandre Farias Pereira currently works as a Biomedical Scientist in the Immunohematology and Transfusion Service department at a hospital in Portugal, while also lecturing at the Dr. Lopes Dias School of Health at the Polytechnic University. He is a member of NECE – Research Centre for Business Sciences at the University of Beira Interior and collaborates with the same institution on research projects in the field of Health Management. His Master's and PhD theses focused on the efficiency of hospital units. He possesses strong interdisciplinary skills, focusing on health management and hospital efficiency. He has conducted several studies on hospital efficiency during periods of crisis, and his research interests revolve around the management and efficiency of health systems, particularly in response to rising healthcare expenditures. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Pereira’s view, academic writing assumes particular significance in an increasingly complex world, where scientific misinformation spreads rapidly through digital media and the proliferation of fake news. This type of writing establishes a common language that aims to communicate scientific research accurately and clearly among researchers, teachers, and students, avoiding ambiguities and subjective opinions. This enables people from various countries and contexts to understand how knowledge is created and validated, ensuring the credibility and transparency of the scientific process.
Dr. Pereira indicates that data sharing has become a central element of contemporary scientific writing, reflecting the academic community's commitment to transparency and rigour. Sharing data is crucial because it allows results to be validated, reinforces the credibility of research, and promotes reproducibility. This practice fosters new discoveries by enabling other researchers to reuse and integrate information in different contexts. However, data sharing, in his opinion, must be carried out in an ethical and responsible manner, respecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and the correct interpretation of results.
“To all those who dedicate themselves to academic writing and the advancement of scientific knowledge, I offer my deepest gratitude and encouragement. Writing about science is much more than communicating results; it is actively participating in the construction of collective knowledge. Each article or thesis represents a valuable contribution to a more enlightened, fair, informed, and cohesive society. At a time when misinformation spreads rapidly, your commitment to accuracy, truth, and clarity is an act of courage and social responsibility. Continue to investigate, question, and write with passion and integrity. Because it is through well-founded words that knowledge becomes impact, and science becomes hope,” says Dr. Pereira.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Tarik Wasfie
Dr. Tarik Wasfie graduated from Baghdad College of Medicine in 1970 and pursued a surgical career with a focus on academics. Currently, he is a clinical professor of surgery at Central Michigan University and Michigan State University, Michigan, USA. He is interested in reducing burnout among residents and medical students, improving their well-being, while supporting their Emotional Intelligence.
Dr. Wasfie believes that any paper focusing on patient care and safety is valuable. He frequently reminds his students and residents that a negative finding in research can be just as significant as a positive one.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Soichiro Saeki
Dr. Soichiro Saeki is an attending physician in the Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. He has conducted extensive research on healthcare access for non-Japanese patients and disparities in medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. He has been actively involved in public health and international collaborative cohort studies, and he strives to integrate research findings into clinical practice and policy discussion. Alongside his academic pursuits, he mentors residents and students to promote evidence-based and globally minded clinical research. He is also certified medical personnel of the Japanese Society of Travel and Health.
From Dr. Saeki’s perspective, academic writing is not only about sharing results—it is about contributing to the collective progress of science. Through writing, researchers transform observations into structured knowledge that others can learn from, question, and expand upon. It ensures transparency, fosters reproducibility, and builds trust in the scientific community. Ultimately, academic writing is an act of stewardship, preserving knowledge and advancing the dialogue that drives medicine forward.
Dr. Saeki asserts that an effective author should have curiosity, integrity, and perseverance. Curiosity sparks discovery, integrity sustains credibility, and perseverance refines ideas through repeated effort. Just as importantly, humility and openness to collaboration are vital—because science is a shared endeavor. The best authors not only present data but also inspire others to think critically and ethically.
In addition, Dr. Saeki emphasizes the significance of research data sharing. It enhances transparency, enables reproducibility, and accelerates innovation. When data are shared responsibly, they allow researchers to validate findings, avoid duplication, and apply insights in new contexts—especially in public health and healthcare delivery, where evidence informs real-world decisions. However, data sharing must always respect ethical principles, privacy, and cultural sensitivity. Responsible openness is the foundation of credible science.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)