In 2026, 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 (2026)
Mohan Tanniru, The University of Arizona, USA
Matthew J. DePuccio, Rush University in Chicago, USA
Soumya Upadhyay, The University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA
Nabeel Al Amiri, Tawam Hospital, UAE
Outstanding Author
Mohan Tanniru
Dr. Mohan Tanniru is an Adjunct Professor in the Division of Public Health Practice and Translational Research in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, the University of Arizona, Tucson/Phoenix. He was a Fulbright Scholar and an emeritus professor of MIS at Oakland University. He was the former Dean of the School of Business and the Dept. Head of MIS at U of Arizona. His research covers areas like knowledge/decision support, IT strategy and systems, service modeling, and, more recently, digital health and healthcare leadership and management. His recent research focuses on Health Policy and Technology, inter-organizational collaboration to support patient care journeys, and community strategies to address population health, with some recent projects looking at the role of AI and agentic systems to support population health. He has published over 110 research articles, co-edited six special issues, and co-authored over 30 chapters in books.
Dr. Tanniru believes that the concept of a good academic paper is subjective. Nevertheless, any academic paper should contribute to either the extension of theory or the application of theory in a novel way to address a complex problem. The methodologies employed can vary widely, ranging from empirical approaches that yield measurable results to conceptual approaches that develop frameworks, models, and propositions for future empirical research. The ultimate goal is to advance current knowledge in a meaningful way and propose extensions for other researchers to build upon. Additionally, some frameworks or models can be inductively derived from case studies, allowing practitioners to inform academics, while academics can utilize practitioners' insights to validate their theories.
Dr. Tanniru asserts that authors bring their own biases based on their training in methodologies and the research they read. It is difficult to avoid bias. However, the question to ask is how the bias influences their research approach-subject population, or case studies they choose to study, and the applicability of the results when these are generalized. Therefore, while bias may not be difficult to avoid, recognition of its impact on our results and accepting the limitations of these for generalizability are the best way to inform readers of the research work.
“I have been asked to review some papers from fields that I had little knowledge of, like medical sciences, complex engineering, and advanced technologies such as machine learning, and some in social psychology. While I avoid extending my reach beyond my capabilities, I often review these for my own need to broaden my understanding of interdisciplinary work. When I do such reviews, I often mention to the editors that my focus is the clarity with which a problem is defined, the methodology used to solve the problem, the clarity with which the results were presented, and the limitations discussed. I often tell my Ph.D. students and colleagues that they should ask themselves three questions: what is my research in plain language (or English), who cares (what is the relevance of this work and for whom), and what will I be doing five years from now (does the work extend to something broader or deeper to make a meaningful contribution to academic or practitioner audience),” says Dr. Tanniru.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Matthew J. DePuccio
Dr. Matthew J. DePuccio is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Systems Management at the College of Health Sciences at Rush University in Chicago, Illinois. As a qualitative health services researcher, his research focuses on healthcare workers’ well-being in general. More specifically, his research aims to identify actionable drivers of clinical and leader morale, including communication, role clarity and control, trust, and feeling valued. In focusing on this work, his research has provided various evidence-based targets (e.g., restoring synchronous contact, increasing work control, building leader–organization values alignment, and investing in high-quality connections at work) that healthcare organizations can implement to optimize teams and curb employee attrition.
JHMHP: Why do we need academic writing?
Dr. DePuccio: Academic writing is important because it creates a space for scholars to engage in conversation with one another, challenge existing assumptions, and advance our understanding of key concepts in our field. It is a medium for debate, reflection, and knowledge-building. At its best, academic writing helps clarify complex or contested topics by bringing evidence, theory, and interpretation together in a disciplined way. It allows us to ask: What do we know? What remains unclear? What assumptions need to be challenged? And what new frameworks might help us better explain the patterns we are seeing? These are just some of the reasons why academic writing is important: it should challenge us to offer new ways of seeing familiar problems while helping to advance the field.
JHMHP: How to ensure one’s writing is critical?
Dr. DePuccio: I try not to be a passive reader of the literature. When I am researching a topic, I take time to appraise the work that will serve as the foundation for my own. That means paying attention not only to what prior studies have found, but also to their strengths, limitations, assumptions, and unanswered questions. I have found that if I do not engage critically with the literature, it becomes much harder to articulate a meaningful gap or explain how my work contributes to the broader conversation. I also seek out constructive feedback from peers, colleagues, and, when appropriate, practitioners. Feedback is essential because it helps me see whether my arguments are logical and supported by the evidence I present. Sometimes, when we are very close to a research topic and the data, we need others to challenge our thinking, which is an important part of the writing process.
JHMHP: Do you have an interesting story about your academic writing that you would like to share?
Dr. DePuccio: One thing I have learned is that the clearest contributions often do not emerge simply from reporting data or results. They develop through writing, revising, and having thoughtful conversations with collaborators. I noticed this recently while co-authoring an article with colleagues on healthcare leaders’ experiences of meaningful work. The writing process helped us clarify what the manuscript was really trying to say and why it mattered to people who work in and lead healthcare organizations. These types of experiences remind me that writing is part of how we make sense of what the research means. It also reinforces for me the value of humility and patience. Sometimes the most meaningful insight is not obvious at first. It becomes clearer through revision, feedback, and a willingness to keep asking, “What is the real contribution here?”
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Soumya Upadhyay
Dr. Soumya Upadhyay is an Associate Professor at the Department of Healthcare Administration at the School of Public Health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She has been conducting research in health services and healthcare management for 13 years. Her research focuses on improving hospital quality, patient safety, the culture of patient safety, healthcare technology, and smoking cessation. She examines ways to enhance healthcare quality and patient safety, leading to improved hospital performance and better patient outcomes. She also studies how smoking behaviors can be reduced among youth and adults.
In Dr. Upadhyay’s view, researchers need academic writing because it allows them to scientifically evaluate, explain, and describe phenomena. The things that they sit back and observe in the world are not all random occurrences. These occurrences have a pattern in how they take place. Academic writing explains those relationships, associations, and causations to audiences and can be applied to change managerial interventions and policies.
Dr. Upadhyay emphasizes the importance of discipline in writing for authors. Writing and scientific analysis skills can quickly decline if not practiced regularly, so it is essential to make writing a habit. This process cannot be accomplished in a single day; instead, it should be done consistently over time. Authors should set aside specific times in their days or weeks exclusively for writing, as the task can become overwhelming.
To ensure sufficient time for academic writing, Dr. Upadhyay allocates two days a week for research and writing. That helps her to avoid all other work to focus only on her writing. Researchers sometimes need to turn off the internet and leave their phones in another room to avoid distractions and focus on writing.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Nabeel Al Amiri
Dr. Nabeel Al Amiri holds a Ph.D. in business management from Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. He holds a Master's in strategic management and leadership from Skyline University College in the UAE. He is currently working in the healthcare sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and is a researcher. He has interests in healthcare management, organizational behavior, leadership, knowledge management, and marketing research. He has publications in the Middle East Journal of Management, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy, and other reputable journals. Nabeel is currently working on a book titled Knowledge Management & Research Development Strategies in Healthcare: Evidence from Nursing Practices in the I4.0 Era and conducting multiple research projects in the UAE, Jordan, and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Amiri, academic communication typically differs from regular or literary communication. It primarily aims to convey scientific information, ideas, or arguments within scholarly communities. This scientific information is crucial because it provides an objective and evidence-based foundation, rather than reliance on intuition or superstition, for decision-making, solving complex problems, and driving progress in real life. However, academic communication requires specific writing skills to disseminate information, particularly research findings, via a formal, structured, clear, concise, and objective style. Furthermore, academic writing must take into account ethical considerations, including honesty, responsibility, accuracy, proper source documentation, and the avoidance of plagiarism. If writers fail to adhere to academic writing and ethical standards, their work will lack scientific and professional value, resulting in a questionable academic reputation.
Dr. Amiri emphasizes that selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis is crucial for authors. Evidence synthesis is the process of bringing together evidence from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. It includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and is at the top of the Hierarchy of Evidence. To succeed in evidence synthesis, authors should carefully follow a procedure. The procedure should (1) identify a specific clinical gap, (2) format an appropriate question, such as PICO/T, (3) comprehensively search credible databases, (4) screen papers and include reliable and relevant research, (5) combine and summarize the evidence, and (6) appropriately report evidence and disseminate it among scholarly and professional communities. All steps are essential for providing strong evidence and updating practice.
Lastly, Dr. Amiri stresses that it is important to follow reporting guidelines. In systematic and meta-analyses, using reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency, accuracy, and quality of these research types. These tools are crucial for authors aiming to provide reliable evidence and publish in a reputable journal.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)