In 2023, many CCTS 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 (2023)
Tony Makdisi, University of Massachusetts, USA
Véronique Brulotte, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Canada
Etienne J. Couture, Université Laval, Canada
Sebastien Gilbert, University of Ottawa, Canada
Amanda L. Eilers, Wausau Heart & Lung Surgeons, USA
Antonio Giulio Napolitano, Università del Sacro Cuore, Italy
Outstanding Author
Tony Makdisi
Dr. Tony Makdisi is an Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine and Palliative Care at the University of Massachusetts, currently working at Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield Massachusetts. He is a graduate of Damascus University Medical School in 1992. After completing his internal medicine residency training at Temple University, Conemaugh Memorial Hospital in Pennsylvania, he joined the core faculty of the internal residency program at Berkshire Medical Center. Over the years, Dr. Makdisi was awarded the attending teaching award of the year three times (2008, 2011, and 2015) and became a fellow of the American College of Physicians, and was awarded the Fellowship of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative care society recently. Also, he is a Diplomate and a Fellow of the Society of American Board of Quality and Utilization Review Physicians. He is currently serving as the division chief of palliative care at Berkshire Medical Center. He has published many articles in peer-reviewed journals, and presented in local, national, and regional medical conferences. He continues to serve as a lead hospitalist on a multidisciplinary team dedicated to co-manage surgical patients perioperatively, improving overall outcomes by reducing morbidities and mortalities. Dr. Makdisi’s main interest is critical illness, end-of-life care, medical ethics, and teaching medical students and residents.
When it comes to academic writing, Dr. Makdisi believes that it is significant to focus on a few factors. The organization and structure of the paper are essential, and they are as important as relevance to day-to-day practice. Keeping the flow of the paper and connecting the ideas seamlessly is also the main point. The paper should have a clear purpose, especially when it is analysing data or answering questions on a specific topic, or addressing ethical dilemmas in caring for patients. “Although the main purpose of an academic paper is to enrich the literature around the specific clinical or ethical dilemmas, using simple language so non-medical people can understand is very helpful to convey the content of the paper to the general population who might be interested in learning more about a disease or specific clinical scenario,” says Dr. Makdisi.
Dr. Makdisi stresses that it is important for medical authors to possess a good understanding of the data and the medical concepts being presented and to ensure scientific accuracy. Regardless of the subject content being discussed in the paper, it is crucial for authors to adhere to the principal of medical ethics. With the medical information available online nowadays more than ever, telling the truth and stating the facts regarding the subject are meaningful for authors who are trying to publish.
In addition, Dr. Makdisi thinks institutional review board (IRB) approval provides an independent review of research by conducting a risk-benefit analysis to help ensure that the research is ethical, the participants are at minimal or no risk, their rights are protected and there is compliance with the rules and regulations which will result in public trust in the research. If this process is omitted, the consequences for not getting IRB approval might include suspension or termination of the study, or not being able to publish in a reputable journal and getting sanctioned or fired by their employer. Moreover, it might lead to the freeze or even termination of the research grants, or other disciplinary actions that might be taken by a specific institution where the study is being conducted.
“I came across a few articles published in CCTS that help me care for my patients,” says Dr. Makdisi, “CCTS is a well-known and respected peer-reviewed journal that provides high-quality articles that help the clinicians to care for a variety of complicated surgical patients.” In Dr. Makdisi’s opinion, although the scope of CCTS is mainly thoracic surgery, it still covers many other aspects of care including pulmonary and critical care medicine with special interest at times in decision making and multidisciplinary approach that addresses most of the patients’ needs. And such an approach is the cornerstone of good perioperative care, palliative care and end-of-life care which constitute the bulk of his day-to-day practice. “Above all, it is an open access journal, submitting a paper and reviewing it was seamless and efficient,” adds he.
(by Anita Zhang, Brad Li)
Véronique Brulotte
Dr. Veronique Brulotte, MD, MSc, serves as an anesthesiologist and pain physician at the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Montreal, Canada. She is also an Associate Professor at the University of Montreal, and Chief of the Acute Pain Service at the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital. After completion of the anesthesiology residency, Dr. Brulotte completed the Clinician Investigator Program at the University of Montreal and began clinical practice at the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital. After three years of clinical work, she undertook chronic pain training, specializing in interventional procedures for neck and low back pain at the McGill University. She now practices both anesthesiology and chronic pain medicine at the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital. She participates in research activities and has published frequently in peer-reviewed journals over the last five years. Her main research interests are acute and chronic pain management via the use of non-opioid analgesics and regional analgesia techniques.
Dr. Brulotte thinks academic writing is an important driving force in science, without which the optimal treatments would not be known and medicine would not be driven further. She points out that advances in medical knowledge are transmitted to the scientific community via academic writing, which increases its visibility and allows its diffusion to a larger audience.
Since science advances rapidly day by day, Dr. Brulotte endeavors to ensure her writing is up-to-date and can give new insights to the field of research. She always makes time to read the latest articles from journals which are pertinent to her practice. Participating in at least one or two conferences a year, she can be informed of the latest developments in her field of practice and connect with fellow practitioners and researchers from around the world. When writing academic work, she always thoroughly checks the literature to make sure that every statement is true and up to date.
Aiming to encourage other academic writers, Dr. Brulotte says, “I think the greatest reward from academic writing is knowing that you have made a difference in the practice of others, knowing that it will make them reflect on their practice and potentially improve it. Readers and students are extremely grateful to have access to up to date and rigorous information when needed. We make a difference.”
Dr. Brulotte convinces that disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) is extremely important because that is the only way a reader can determine whether the author may be biased or not in making statements, especially in areas where the evidence is contradictory and of lower quality. The literature is sometimes difficult to interpret and COIs will certainly help tilt the conclusions one way or the other, which can lead to incorrect information being transmitted to knowledge users. She adds, “Readers must be aware of those COIs so they can further process the information.”
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Etienne J. Couture
Dr. Etienne J. Couture obtained his medical degree at Université de Sherbrooke and was then trained in anesthesiology at Université Laval in Quebec City before completing a critical care fellowship at the Université de Montreal in addition to an adult cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia fellowship at the Massachusetts General Hospital. He is currently undergoing a PhD in Biomedical sciences at the Université de Montreal under the supervision Dr. Andre Denault. His research is devoted to right ventricular function monitoring using echocardiography and pulmonary artery catheter in the context of cardiac surgery to better identify patient at risk of post-operative complication. He works at the Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (Quebec Heart & Lung Institute) as an anesthesiology and critical care physician and he is a clinical professor at the Department of anesthesiology and critical care of Université Laval.
CCTS: Why do we need academic writing? What is so important about it?
Dr. Couture: Academic writing is important to improve knowledge sharing. As clinician and scientist, it is important to share ideas and visions of various subjects with other colleagues to help improve overall clinical performance in many ways such as patient safety and clinical effectiveness. There are many aspects that must be taken into consideration in academic writing. It is important to be able to synthesize and conceptualize well an idea so everyone reading the manuscript can understand the essence and the purpose of it. I had supervisors that taught me rigor in writing, and I am thankful to them. It is important to be able to write to reader who may not be expert in a specific topic. Academic writing should be reachable and understandable for a large spectrum of readers. Another important point to consider is to prepare well a manuscript and to follow guidelines for authors having in mind the targeted journal for a manuscript.
CCTS: Science advances rapidly day by day. How do you ensure your writing is up-to-date and can give new insights to the field of research?
Dr. Couture: Sharing with colleagues from different background and horizons is the key component. Being able to take part in research efforts with colleagues from other countries certainly helps to have a wider appreciation of where goes the science I am involved in. From a personal perspective, I have subscription to many online tables of content in addition to “published online” manuscripts which I think is helpful to automatically receive publication titles through mailbox. Additionally, being an active reviewer for peer-reviewed scientific journals also helps to stay up-to-date in addition to actively taking part in the development of science through manuscript reviews.
CCTS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?
Dr. Couture: According time to scientific or side projects, apart from clinical activities, helps me to stay motivated in my clinical task and vice versa. Since I’m working as an attending, I think I’m searching for a professional balance between clinical work and research. In fact, the goal is to find yourself in a position where clinical work motivates you to develop and progress research activities and where the latter motivates you to improve your clinical care. Before stepping in a new research project, I always try to ask myself how the proposed research project might improve patient care and I based my decision primarily on that factor. Producing scientific material, whether it is narrative review manuscripts, original research manuscripts, lectures, or meeting abstracts, needs time where you can sit, focus without distractor in order to ensure proper progression. It is important to prioritize and set boundaries before engaging in new project. This ensures that every project is completed with the appropriate dedication, time and effort. At the end of the day, the scientific manuscripts stays and perdure in time so everyone can read them, so better put 100% effort to make sure you don’t regret any publication in its form or content.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sebastien Gilbert
Dr. Sebastien Gilbert graduated from McGill University medical school in Montréal, Québec. He completed his general surgery residency at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. He obtained further training in cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. He completed additional specialty fellowships in advanced minimally invasive thoracic surgery and in lung transplantation. Dr. Gilbert began his career as a thoracic surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh. He then joined the Division of Thoracic Surgery at the Ottawa Hospital in 2010. He currently holds the rank of Professor of Surgery at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Ottawa. His primary focus is minimally invasive aerodigestive surgery which consists in the use of bronchoscopy, esophagoscopy, thoracoscopy, and the laparoscopy in the treatment of diseases affecting the lungs, mediastinum, esophagus, and stomach. He is interested in the refinement and development of new and existing minimally invasive approaches to the treatment of diseases such as, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, lung cancer, mediastinal tumors, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia, achalasia and esophageal diverticulum. More recently, Dr. Gilbert has teamed up with computer engineers to design an artificial intelligence-based decision support system to assist in the management of chest tubes. View his homepage here.
Dr. Gillbert thinks that if (we agree that) academic writing is a way to make an objective argument using empiric evidence, it is essential to the advancement of science. In his opinion, it is important for researchers to consider using all avenues at their disposal to disseminate the work and getting feedback from their peers.
In Dr. Gillbert’s view, when a need for further knowledge in a specific area is identified, when the research question is clearly formulated, when the objectives of the scientific endeavor are well defined, and when the hypothesis is appropriately stated, there will be a good chance that a significant contribution can be made to the existing body of surgical literature. For further help on getting, one’s research published, he would highly recommend reading the following editorial by Dr. Alec Patterson and colleagues (click here).
Dr. Gillbert reckons that surgeons who are actively involved in clinical or basic science research will have to write grants and submit manuscripts for publication in the pursuit of their goals. He believes one should expect challenges, setbacks, and rejections along the journey. Optimism, resilience, and resolve are going to be useful tools to write the ship and continue to sail forward. Authors should also keep in mind that most significant contributions were made by individuals working together as a team rather than alone. Therefore, he thinks it is important to invest time in building lasting relationships and join forces in striving to succeed.
In addition, according to Dr. Gillbert, something that could interfere or could be perceived as interfering with the objectivity, impartiality, or integrity of scientific research requires full disclosure. It is prudent for authors to disclose any personal, professional, commercial, or financial interests that may have the potential to bias their research. Full disclosure ensures that this information is available to the readers when interpreting published results.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Amanda L. Eilers
Dr. Amanda Eilers is a Wisconsin native who grew up in a rural community. At a young age, she knew she wanted to be a cardiothoracic surgeon. She ultimately matched into the Integrated Cardiothoracic Surgery 6-year residency program at the University of Texas Health Science Center - San Antonio and graduated in 2017. Dr. Eilers has always been drawn to serving a rural population, given her upbringing, and ensuring that the rural population has the same access to high-level cardiac and thoracic surgical care. She currently works at Wausau Heart & Lung Surgeons (Wausau, WI), practicing both cardiac and thoracic surgery. One passion of hers is minimally invasive surgery, and as such, she started the Robotic Thoracic Surgery Program at Aspirus Wausau Hospital. Another focus of hers is mentoring those interested in a career in cardiothoracic surgery, ranging from high school students to surgical residents.
As a community-based surgeon, maintaining a presence in academic writing, in Dr. Eilers’ opinion, not only allows one to stay “up to date” on the newest techniques and treatment options but also provides the opportunity to share another perspective with the academic world. Having authors from all types of practices allows more diversity in scientific writing.
The saying “seeing the forest from the trees” comes to Dr. Eilers’ mind when she is asked about how to ensure one’s writing is critical. Stepping back and looking at the question or topic as a whole first can be extremely helpful. Once an individual has a good handle on the landscape, breaking up the question or topic into smaller aspects can allow a more critical approach. She adds, “Being critical not only falls on you, as an individual but also leaning on colleagues who are honest and genuine with feedback of your scientific work. Teamwork definitely makes the dream work.”
“I fell in love with surgery because of the direct correlation between a physical act (for example, resecting cancer or performing a valve replacement) and the direct improvement in an individual’s health (curing cancer or improving heart failure symptoms, respectively). Throughout my training, I have learned to appreciate the process of academic writing. Although results are not as immediate as an operation, they can be extremely rewarding. Seeing the entire process come together and then sharing that product with others in the surgical community is what motivates me,” says Dr. Eilers.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Antonio Giulio Napolitano
Dr. Antonio Giulio Napolitano is a 4th year resident in Thoracic Surgery at the Fondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli - Università del Sacro Cuore in Rome, Italy. He graduated from the Thoracic Surgery Department of Chieti with a thesis about endoscopic and surgical management of benign tracheobronchial stenosis. After completing his undergraduate studies, he began his residency at the Department of Thoracic Surgery - University of Perugia run by Prof. Francesco Puma, with whom he worked on academic papers and lastly on a new innovative interesting surgical technique of rectus muscle transposition for broncho-pleural fistula closure. Currently, he is concluding his residency at the Thoracic Surgery Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli Hospital in Rome. His main interests are lung cancer minimally invasive surgical treatment, interventional bronchoscopy and oesophageal surgery.
From Dr. Napolitano’s perspective, academic writing is a prerequisite for career success and future job opportunities. To him, many young people, including himself, starting their careers at the beginning as postgraduates, have no idea how to approach an academic writing and this is only the basis of their future challenges. The tips for executing a good academic paper are based on several steps, especially in the beginning, inexperience could lead to unnecessary loss of time and effort as sometimes happens. The choice of a current and innovative topic is the basis of the research. In the absence of ideas, an in-depth study of topics and related research is crucial to proceed with the study. To define a good academic paper, he believes it must be embedded with scientific evidence in such a way as to make it contextually correct; furthermore, this evidence must be able to demonstrate some of the awareness but also the opposite of what is being discussed. Not least, it needs to have a well-delineated structure and conclusions to be as clear as possible in explaining the rationale and outcomes of the study. The aim of an academic study is to demonstrate expertise in a specific topic and to be able, if possible, not only to explore its literature but to contribute one's own opinion or experience. Clearly in order to be able to do this, an in-depth study of the subject and a complete analysis of it in all its facets in the literature is necessary.
Dr. Napolitano highlights that biases within a scientific work are frequent and sometimes inserted in an unintended manner. The task is, if possible, on the basis of experience and practicality gained over time, to be able to foresee certain biases before planning and drafting so that they can be prevented. All stages of scientific research are subject to certain biases, starting from the design to the study and research, till the realization of an academic paper. For his brief work experience as an academic writer, to eliminate bias at the start of literature research and analysis, authors must have a linear strategy, purpose, and criteria. Those, assembled as a baseline, can offer developments of possible new horizons untethered from the maturation of established information while holding it as a reference of acquired knowledge. This assumption is based on knowledge and in-depth study of the subject matter and the acquisition of information from careful research.
“My suggestion to encourage other academic prospective writers, including myself, is to have faith and confidence in their ideas, remaining ambitious but at the same time as true to reality as possible. Study and research are essential and especially at the beginning of the career, as I am. Achieving the evidence-based publication step is about progressive growth over time. Of course, as is common, articles are often not accepted or undergo numerous revisions over time, which makes the work more complex and equally difficult. Finally, the work of the reviewers is no less important, as it is very frequent to find very interesting ideas with which to update and make one's paper even better. In the last period, I have come to appreciate very much some suggestions that were given to me by some reviewers in a recent publication, whose discussion with the reviewers lasted a few months. The rationale is, therefore, to be able to obtain such insights from these ‘corrections’ by succeeding in not only improving the article itself but also drawing from that suggestion’s further investigation,” Dr. Napolitano says.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)