In 2024, many authors bring new findings, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to breast diseases 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 perspectives and insightful views as authors.
Outstanding Authors (2024)
Peter W. Henderson, The Mount Sinai Hospital, USA
Clement Luck Khng Chia & Jolie Jingyi Hwee, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore
Harvey L Bumpers, Michigan State University, USA
Mardi R. Karin, Stanford University, USA
Outstanding Author
Peter W. Henderson
Peter Henderson, MD, MBA, FACS, is a reconstructive surgeon and microsurgeon at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. As Associate Professor and Director of Research for his Division, his clinical and research interests focus on autologous breast reconstruction and how to optimize care for patients undergoing these procedures in the hospital, as well as in both the early and late phases of recovery outside the hospital. Connect with Dr. Henderson on Instagram.
ABS: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Dr. Henderson: One of the greatest challenges in academic writing is where to start. I still struggle with this, and the research fellows and clinical residents in our program often do, too. We have found that when planning a paper, the best place to start is at the end: the Conclusion. Before we start writing any paper, we hone in on the one sentence takeaway that we want our readers to remember after they have read our paper. Once we have clearly defined that one sentence, then everything can be structured in reverse from there. Starting in outline form with bullet points, we then decide what elements need to be mentioned in the Discussion that will lead our readers to be able to decide for themselves whether they agree with our Conclusion. We then decide what data to present that support our conclusion, and in what order, in the Results section. We then decide how to describe the methods undertaken to obtain those results in the Methods section. And then, very importantly, we decide what needs to be said in the Introduction section that introduces the clinical problem, the deficiency in the current literature, and why it is a question worth answering. Once we have built a carefully thought-out outline using this method, turning our bullet points into text is usually very straightforward. And the result is a paper that tells a focused story that includes all the information our readers need in order to assess our conclusion without any information they do not need.
ABS: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Dr. Henderson: It can be challenging to know what evidence is appropriate for inclusion in your study. One of my early research mentors instilled in me a somewhat crass but very true warning about data in research: “Garbage in, garbage out.” No matter how careful your analysis may be, if the data used as input for your analysis was not of the highest quality and veracity, then your results are of no benefit to our community – and in fact, may be detrimental. The research we put out into the world impacts decisions made about the care of individual patients, and we must, therefore, assume the gravity of that responsibility and be sure to do the very best we can through our research to make the world a better and safer place. So, the guidance that we give to our team, and the advice that we share with others outside of our team, is to be meticulous about the quality of your data. Our patients deserve nothing less!
ABS: Is there any interesting story during academic writing that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Henderson: I have been involved in clinical research involving immediate lymphatic reconstruction (performed at the same time as the axillary lymph node removal for breast cancer) to reduce the incidence of lymphedema of the arm. A certain promising technique had been thought to have been first described by a group of Italian surgeons in the 1990s, and to the best of their knowledge, it was a novel technique that they devised themselves. While conducting some background research, however, I discovered a paper published in the 1980s in an obscure Russian-language journal by a surgeon in the USSR that described the exact technique. Eager to communicate with him to learn more about his experience with this operation, I contacted a medical translator and did a lot of internet sleuthing, as well as made a bunch of phone calls to the hospital in the Moscow area. Ultimately, I discovered that he had sadly recently passed away. But I heard from others who had worked with him that despite no further reports of his outcomes in the literature, he had performed that procedure for many years, and it was his impression that it had helped many women in his community during his career. Through our subsequent writings and presentations, we have been proud to introduce him and his work to the Western world and to celebrate his innovation and patient care. Furthermore, this experience reinforced the idea that even though there may be barriers such as language, time, and geopolitics between us, we are all caregivers who share the common goal of trying to provide the best possible care to our patients. And a very deep dive into the literature usually reveals some wonderful findings.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Clement Luck Khng Chia Jolie Jingyi Hwee
Dr. Clement Luck Khng Chia serves as Head of Breast Surgery Service and Consultant Breast and Endocrine Surgeon at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, National Healthcare Group, Singapore. He also holds adjunct faculty positions as Assistant Professor in Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, and Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University. He was awarded the Human Manpower Development Plan Team Award by the Ministry of Health, Singapore in 2022 to lead a multidisciplinary team from his hospital to the UK to learn the best practices in oncoplastic surgery and personalized management of breast cancer in elderly women. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Jolie Jingyi Hweeis Consultant and Head of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery Service at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. She performs the full spectrum of adult reconstructive and aesthetic surgery, with keen clinical and research interest in breast reconstruction. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Chia and Dr. Hwee collaborate closely in a team-based model to optimise outcomes in patients requiring mastectomy and reconstruction. Together, they won an innovation grant to develop a digital healthcare innovation to help women with breast cancer make better informed choices regarding breast reconstruction.
ABS: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Dr. Chia and Dr. Hwee: The act of academic writing encompasses a myriad of challenges, even for individuals who possess extensive experience in research. A primary obstacle is the attainment of clarity when articulating complex and multifaceted subjects. The inclination to incorporate every detail may result in excessively dense prose, thereby obscuring the principal message. To mitigate this issue, it is imperative to uphold a clear focus and logical progression throughout the manuscript, which often necessitates multiple iterations of meticulous revision. Another considerable challenge involves achieving an appropriate equilibrium between comprehensiveness and conciseness. It is crucial to furnish sufficient detail to substantiate arguments effectively, whilst simultaneously averting the inundation of the readers with superfluous information. This difficulty becomes increasingly pronounced in the context of interdisciplinary topics, wherein it is essential to accurately represent diverse perspectives from various domains. Temporal constraints further exacerbate the situation; the compulsion to publish can occasionally precipitate hasty writing, potentially undermining the quality of the final manuscript. Additionally, navigating the feedback provided by peer reviewers can be particularly intimidating, especially when recommendations conflict with the original conceptualization of the work. The essential approach is to remain receptive to constructive criticism while retaining confidence in the research and the conveyed message, thereby ensuring that the final manuscript is both refined and impactful.
ABS: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Dr. Chia and Dr. Hwee: The process of effective evidence synthesis is paramount in scholarly writing, necessitating a systematic and comprehensive methodology. This endeavor commences with a precise comprehension of the research inquiry, which subsequently directs the selection of relevant evidence. Priority should be accorded to high-caliber sources, especially those found in peer-reviewed academic journals. Acknowledging the context of evidence generation is key, since variables like geography and clinical environment can profoundly shape the outcomes. Conducting a critical analysis of the methodological structure of every study, incorporating elements like design, sample size, and potential biases, is key to verifying the dependability of the synthesis. Scholars should endeavor to achieve a balanced examination, reflecting on both evidence that corroborates and evidence that refutes their hypotheses. This methodology bolsters the credibility of the synthesis and facilitates a more holistic comprehension of the subject matter. Awareness of publication bias, which asserts that affirmative findings are disseminated more regularly than adverse results, carries significant weight, as it can lead to a misleading evidence narrative. Implementing frameworks like PRISMA is critical for supporting openness and the potential for replicating outcomes in synthesis endeavors. Continuously revisiting the research question as new evidence is assimilated ensures that the synthesis retains its focus, relevance, and rigor.
ABS: Is it crucial for authors to reveal any Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what degree would a COI exert an influence on research outcomes?
Dr. Chia and Dr. Hwee: The disclosure of COI constitutes a critical component in the preservation of transparency and trust within the realm of academic research. COIs, whether financial or non-financial in nature, possess the capacity to affect numerous phases of the research continuum, encompassing study design, data interpretation, and the selection of evidence. Even in instances where no overt bias is present, the mere perception of a COI can diminish the credibility of the research, engendering skepticism among readers and reviewers. Consequently, it is imperative for authors to disclose any potential conflicts transparently, thereby enabling others to evaluate the research with comprehensive awareness of any external influences. This transparency not only defends the credibility of the study but also promotes an environment of sincerity in academia. In our professional conduct, we regard COI disclosure with utmost seriousness, ensuring that all potential conflicts are articulated with clarity. By adopting this methodology, we strive to maintain the tenets of research integrity, which subsequently enhances the dependability and credibility of scholarly writings. Ultimately, transparent COI disclosure fortifies the foundational trust between researchers, their colleagues, and the public, which is vital for the progression of knowledge and the advancement of science.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Harvey L Bumpers
Dr. Harvey L Bumpers is Professor and Director of Breast Surgery at Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine. He completed medical school at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. This was followed by a General Surgery residency at SUNY at Stony Brook School of Medicine. A Surgical Oncology fellowship was completed at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. As a professor at Morehouse School of Medicine, he started to focus on cancer health disparities and especially its effects on African American women with breast cancer. In the realm of clinical investigation, his focuses are breast and colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatments. His research interests extend to the basic sciences. In his laboratory, the focus is on the study of carcinogenesis, animal tumor modeling, the use of nanotechnology in breast and colorectal cancers progression and therapy, and scientific aspects of cancer health disparity.
From Dr. Bumpers’ perspective, a good academic paper asks thought-provoking questions and leads one down a path toward a solution. If the solution has not been achieved, it stimulates a desire to search further or start one’s own personal research efforts. A good paper affords one the opportunity to reference it to accurately support a clinical or scientific premise.
In constructing a paper, Dr. Bumpers thinks that researchers may find more questions than they were initially prepared to answer in the manuscript. In order to make it a great paper, one may have to go back to the database on multiple occasions to extract and analyze more data. The process can become tedious, but the paper will increase the attention and improve the knowledge of its readers.
“ABS publishes noteworthy articles. I often find many of the articles that I use in my lectures and research in this journal. Because of the rigor of the selection process, I feel confident that the authors of manuscripts published in ABS have well supported the conclusions of their works,” says Dr. Bumpers.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Mardi R. Karin
Mardi R. Karin, MD, Clinical Professor of Surgery at Stanford University is a very experienced Breast Cancer Surgeon with expertise in all aspects of breast cancer care including techniques for the best possible outcomes. Her clinical research focuses on improving outcomes from breast cancer surgery, for both female and male patients, such as through the publication in Annals of Breast Surgery (ABS) regarding contemporary surgical treatment options for male breast cancer patients. Learn more about her here.
In Dr. Karin’s opinion, a good academic paper should address questions that will have a significant impact on improving the care of patients, such as improving outcomes for cancer patients. In constructing the paper, authors should bear in mind the key clinical questions that can advance clinical care with improved outcomes.
Speaking of her most recent work in ABS (which can be accessed here), Dr. Karin indicates that this is a very important publication because it is the first patient series for males treated with nipple sparing mastectomy or areola sparing mastectomy for breast cancer with excellent outcomes. The data support that nipple sparing or areola sparing mastectomy is an oncologically safe option for male breast cancer patients, with excellent outcomes, no recurrences to date, and very good patient satisfaction. All the authors noted that these options provide far superior aesthetic results and appearance compared to conventional total mastectomy in males, and thus represent excellent contemporary options that can be offered to male breast cancer patients. She adds, “These types of studies are crucial to advancing the care of male breast cancer patients on whom there are limited studies compared to females.”
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)