In 2024, many JPHE authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding authors who have been making immense efforts in their research fields, with a brief interview of their unique perspective and insightful view as authors.
Outstanding Authors (2024)
Zypher Jude G. Regencia, University of the Philippines Manila, Philippines
Meggie Caravotta, University of York, UK
Beatrice Thielmann, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
Giacomo Stroffolini, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Italy
Ryan V. Labana, The Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Philippines
Jay Andrea vea D. Israel, Cagayan State University, Philippines
Hemanathan Praemanathan, The National University of Malaysia, Malaysia
Jay E. Maddock, Texas A&M University, USA
Giuseppe Minervini, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Italy
Linda Henry, Inova Health System, USA
Schuyler H. DeBree, Research Triangle Institute, USA
Claudio Dalla Vecchia, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Ireland
Outstanding Author
Zypher Jude G. Regencia
Zypher Jude G. Regencia is a PhD candidate from the Department of Clinical Epidemiology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, hoping to graduate in July 2024. He is currently doing a dissertation on body image and mental health. Aside from this current research, he is also involved in HIV research projects. He is presently involved in the Cooper HIV/AIDS Research Training (CHART) Program at the Kirby Institute of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. In addition, he is currently implementing a project on the acceptability and feasibility of using oral-based HIV self-testing kits among men-having-sex-with-men and transgender populations in the Great Manila Area. The results will be used as evidence for the national roll-out of these innovative test kits, which are aimed at reaching the vulnerable population, similar to his previous research project on blood-based HIV self-testing kits. Connect with Zypher on ResearchGate.
JPHE: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Zypher: When writing an academic paper, I can think of some elements to include to make it credible and effective. A clear and well-defined research question or thesis statement is the main frame that forms the sturdy foundation of a good academic paper. This research question or thesis statement should be well-built, based on the bricks and pieces of a thorough, rigorous, and comprehensive review of existing literature and research. Effective academic writing also necessitates careful attention to the overall organization and structure of the paper. It is important to ensure that ideas and notions flow logically and coherently from one paragraph to another, enhancing readability and comprehension. In addition, proper compliance with academic conventions and formatting guidelines, including citing references from reputable sources, clearly presents scholarly integrity and allows traceability of documentation conducted.
Furthermore, it is crucial to demonstrate originality and depth of understanding within a field through critical examination, analysis, and data interpretation. This would involve displaying findings and objectively presenting arguments while acknowledging potential methodological limitations. Lastly, it is important to communicate effectively. Clear writing, precise language, and coherent argument are vital to ensure that a paper is well-received by the intended audience and adds value to the scholar and academic discourses.
JPHE: What do authors have to bear in mind during the preparation of a paper?
Zypher: To me, research authors should consider several key factors when preparing a paper. The definition of the research scope and clear citation of research questions define the overall extent of the research conducted. A comprehensive review of the literature will give the authors proper support when presenting arguments or findings. This careful and comprehensive examination of the literature necessitates the assessment and synthesis of critical information to develop substantiated arguments.
Expanding on the above question regarding elements of a good academic paper, authors should consider the organization and structure of their paper, ensuring that it follows a logical and cohesive flow from the introduction to the conclusion. Each section of the manuscript should have a clear purpose that contributes to the general argument and narrative of the paper.
Authors should remember that feedback and revisions should be well-received while preparing a paper. Recognizing scientific writing as an iterative process is an important trait the authors must possess since publishing a paper often requires multiple drafts.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Meggie Caravotta
Meggie Caravotta is a human rights specialist with a background in Health and Social Wellbeing. Her passion for defending individuals' civil and political rights and advocating for social justice led her to pursue a Master's in Applied Human Rights at the University of York, UK. Meggie is highly interested in research for policy and program shifts, recognizing its fundamental role in strengthening the health and social protection systems. She has research in the fields of public health and health behavior change, mental health, refugee rights, and gender-based violence. She is passionate about research and humanitarian work to create positive change, advocate for the rights of individuals, and empower communities. Meggie is currently working as a Domestic Abuse Advisor, offering practical and psychosocial support to women and children, survivors of domestic violence, conducting risk assessments and managing multi-agency coordination to ensure their safety and well-being. She is actively seeking research opportunities with researchers and individual organizations to contribute to society and drive for positive change. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
When it comes to composing a good academic paper, Meggie believes its quality is multifaceted. Transparency is a fundamental concept that should be incorporated consistently throughout each research process due to its ethical values and principles and to enhance the trustworthiness of its findings. The organizational structure is also essential, guiding readers through the flow of ideas with clarity and cohesion with sections like introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Within this framework, a comprehensive literature review situates the research within the broader scholarly context, demonstrating its relevance and contribution to existing knowledge. Additionally, the most suitable research approach, in her opinion, helps determine the success and overall quality of the research, together with robust data analysis methods to support the findings. The research paper should be characterized by conciseness and clarity, with a firm conclusion and discussion section that presents and synthesizes the findings, drawing meaningful connections to existing research and underscoring the significance of the study.
In preparing and designing a paper, Meggie highlights that it is essential to integrate the critical elements derived from a comprehensive literature review within the relevant field and identify the gaps in the study research area. This systematic approach establishes the study's foundation and guides the proposed research's direction, results, and potential impact. She has found that using techniques such as creating mind maps, engaging in reflective inquiry to visualize the research landscape, and identifying keywords were invaluable steps in conceptualizing ideas in a structured and innovative manner. By doing this, she clarified the research objectives, defined the scope of the study, and articulated its significance within the academic field, including its pragmatic integration into applied practice.
“I chose to publish my research article “Factors associated with non-adherence to preventive measures among adolescents and young people (18 to 29 years) during the three epidemiological waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain” in JPHE due to its focus on health protection and improving health strengthening systems, alongside its high-quality peer-review process. My research article aims at enhancing community engagement and trust in global and local emergency responses to situations like pandemics, aligning with field of the journal. Additionally, JPHE open-access articles reflect commitment and dedication to academic integrity and also amplify the visibility and influence of the researcher’s work,” says Meggie.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Beatrice Thielmann
Dr. Beatrice Thielmann has been a visiting scientist at the Institute of Occupational Medicine at the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, since 2012. She leads the working groups "EMS Research" and "Psychocardiology". She is also a specialist in internal medicine and cardiology (since 2017), an active emergency physician (since 2014), and former chief emergency physician of the Segeberg district in Schleswig-Holstein (2016-2018). Since 2021, she has also trained in occupational medicine in Hamburg, Germany. Learn more about her here.
Academic writing can pose a number of challenges, according to Dr. Thielmann, even for experienced writers. For example, efficiently organizing one’s ideas into a logical and coherent structure is crucial. Many struggle to produce an outline that effectively organizes their main points, arguments and evidence. Developing effective writing habits and good time management are essential skills for academic writers. Procrastination and poor time management can lead to rushed writing sessions and poor-quality work. For non-native speakers, writing at an academic level in another language can be particularly daunting. This includes mastering vocabulary, grammar, syntax and general fluency. Formulating a clear, specific and arguable thesis statement can be difficult. The thesis statement is the central argument of the paper, and all other elements of the essay should support or relate to it. Receiving and incorporating feedback can be challenging, especially if it requires significant revision. Learning to see feedback as a constructive tool for improvement is essential.
On selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis, Dr. Thielmann suggests using sources that are credible and authoritative. These include peer-reviewed journal articles, books from reputable publishers and sources that have been checked for academic use. Authors should avoid unreliable websites and sources with obvious bias without academic backing. Depending on one’s field, it is important to use the most recent research available to ensure the relevance and timeliness of one’s arguments. In fast-changing fields such as technology or medicine, recent studies are particularly important. They should also include a range of sources, including studies with different viewpoints or findings. This diversity allows for a fuller understanding of the topic and demonstrates an unbiased approach to research. The evidence must directly relate to and support the thesis or main points of one’s essay. Each piece of evidence should make a clear and direct contribution to one’s argument.
In addition, rather than simply summarizing each source, Dr. Thielmann points out that authors should focus on integrating the evidence to build a coherent argument and show how the evidence relates to one’s points and to each other, creating an argumentative structure that enhances understanding. They should then critically analyze and question the evidence and consider the methodology, biases, limitations and context in which the research was conducted. This critical approach can provide deeper insights and strengthen one’s argument.Authors should balance their use of different types of evidence, such as qualitative and quantitative research, to provide a rounded perspective on the issue. This balance helps them address the issue comprehensively. Lastly, they should aim to synthesize the evidence in a way that provides new insights or perspectives on the research question. This involves looking beyond the obvious connections and exploring deeper implications, contradictions, or gaps in the research.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Giacomo Stroffolini
Giacomo Stroffolini graduated from Medical School at Sapienza University of Rome in 2016. He specialized in infectious disease at the University of Torino. He had the chance to work at Belgian, Spanish, and French institutions within exchange programs. In 2013, he cooperated with NGOs, working in the Central African Republic and in 2024 in Angola. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked in the high-dependency unit wards and was selected for the EMT2- Emergency Medical Team for a COVID-19 Mission in India, New Delhi. He obtained with Merit a Diploma in Tropical Medicine & Hygiene at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in 2020. He attended the European Educational Programme in Epidemiology 2022 and completed an observership period in an ESCMID center in Lausanne (2022). Nowadays, Dr. Stroffolini is working as a research clinician within the REVERSE Horizon Europe project and as a clinical consultant in Infectious diseases and tropical medicine at the IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar di Valpolicella, Verona, Italy. He is also taking part in the ESCMID AMS certificate group 2023-2025. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JPHE: What do you regard as a good academic paper?
Dr. Stroffolini: In academic papers, I prefer elements of innovation, but my main focuses are methodology and relevance of the research question.
JPHE: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Dr. Stroffolini: Nowadays, we are confronted with an increasing “demand” for publishing. Unfortunately, these needs do not always reflect the actual goals for academic research. Moreover, reviewers are increasingly scarce in number and frequently do not address the review work appropriately, as being a reviewer is stressful, poorly rewarding and very demanding. Academia requires time, and this is not always respected in many aspects of research and publishing processes.
JPHE: What is fascinating about academic writing?
Dr. Stroffolini: The idea of vehiculating ideas throughout research papers is fascinating by definition. It is a way of building up common knowledge and shared views. So much work is condensed in few pages and transmitting specific messages can be very challenging but satisfying. Opening up debates and addressing health challenges trough academic writing is very inspiring.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
Ryan V. Labana
Ryan V. Labana is an Associate Professor at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, where he also serves as the Chief of the Center for Integrated Community Science Research. He has extensive experience in medical parasitology, neglected tropical diseases, and emerging infectious diseases. His research interests include the morphological and molecular identification of parasites, epidemiology, and the intersection of public health and parasitology. Currently, he is focused on studying the transmission dynamics of Cryptosporidium spp. in various ecosystems. In addition to his academic responsibilities, he is an active member of prestigious scientific organizations such as the National Research Council of the Philippines, the Philippine Society of Parasitology, the Metro Manila Health Research and Development Consortium, and the Biology Teachers Association. His commitment to science communication and community education is evident through his participation in projects that address public health challenges in the Philippines. Connect with him on Facebook.
Assoc. Prof. Labana thinks academic writing is extremely important in the field of science. It allows the scientific community to assess research findings for their originality, validity, and significance. This evaluation process ensures that the research meets the rigorous standards of science and provides valuable information to the field. While scientific journals primarily cater to experts, scientists, and policymakers, summarizing research findings in science communication platforms and public lectures helps enhance public understanding of science. In addition, academic writing in science serves other purposes such as documenting scientific progress, influencing policies and practices, and fostering collaborations to advance the field.
The pace of scientific advancements in today's world is incredibly rapid. Assoc. Prof. Labana explains the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has reduced the time needed to generate insights across various scientific fields. This poses a significant challenge for scientists and researchers who prefer traditional data collection and analysis methods. It can also disadvantage researchers from underprivileged backgrounds, as they may struggle to access AI-based science or modern techniques for generating scientific output. As a researcher from a resource-limited country, collaboration is crucial in ensuring he/she receives support in contributing new insights to the research community. Collaborating allows researchers to gauge their own pace in research production and reporting. Researchers should understand their roles and pace in the scientific community enabling them to seek timely and relevant capability training to stay updated on the latest scientific trends.
“As dramatic as it may sound, what motivates me to produce academic write-ups are the real people in our country who suffer from infectious and neglected tropical diseases. Reporting on the situation of individuals in underprivileged rural or urban communities allows me to communicate their needs to the authorities who can offer assistance. Understanding and finding potential solutions to the actual problems faced by these individuals is the essence of my academic write-ups. As long as these problems persist, my motivation to engage in academic writing will endure,” says Assoc. Prof. Labana.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Jay Andrea vea D. Israel
Dr. Jay Andrea vea D. Israel is a Registered Medical Technologists from the College of Allied Health Sciences at Cagayan State University. Currently, she is making strides in the field of schistosomiasis research. With a deep-rooted passion for the profession and public health, her career is marked with academic and professional achievements. Her recent research focuses on Schistosoma japonicum, specifically in the endemic areas of Gonzaga, Cagayan. In the quest to combat this parasitic disease, her research employed cutting-edge techniques such as environmental DNA analysis, optimizing protocols for conventional PCR, and conducting comprehensive mapping and snail surveillance. Beyond research endeavors, she is actively engaged with the professional community serving as an influential officer (Board of Trustees) of the PAMET-Cagayan Chapter and a dedicated educator of future Medical Technologists.
Dr. Israel thinks a good academic paper should be informative, credible, and contribute to the field. It is characterized by several elements including a clear and specific title, a well-defined statement of objectives, a detailed methodology, and lastly, the results and discussion should be understood easily. Furthermore, an academic paper should not only contribute to the body of knowledge but also serve the public good. It must demonstrate a tangible impact on the community.
From Dr. Israel’s perspective, to ensure that writing is up-to-date and can give new insights into the field of research, one must stay current with the literature. Another way is to engage in professional networks by participating in conferences, training, and seminars that provide cutting-edge research and emerging trends. An exchange of innovative ideas and the sharing of different perspectives are achieved through peer collaboration. She adds it is also important to focus on practical application. To demonstrate the application of research findings in a real-world scenario, and to highlight its relevance in the field, one must keep the writing current, relevant, and insightful.
“I am new to academic writing, but the process of learning and growth is immensely rewarding,” says Dr. Israel.The three stages of the research process—writing the research proposal, conducting the research, and presenting the findings—each comes with their own challenges. To her, writing the research proposal is the most difficult part. Organizing a cohesive academic paper, despite having a topic in mind, is quite tasking. A well-defined objective takes lots of journal and reference readings, interactions with stakeholders and sessions of brainstorming with peers. This is because writing a research proposal anticipates potential challenges in data collection and the outcome of the research study can be forecasted. Fieldwork or experimentation phase are areas of research she enjoys the most, particularly because they offer moments of discovery and breakthroughs in research. Although this phase demands great effort, extensive hours, and frustrations due to challenges and failures, it remains a rewarding experience for her.
She explains, “Being able to immerse myself in the community, troubleshoot my way through experimentation, traverse a terrain, engage the community, and observe them, verifying the research findings are truly a remarkable experience especially when I will be able to incorporate solutions or alleviate their disease burden. Writing and discussing the findings of research takes collaborative effort which offers diverse perspectives. The feedback and involvement from peers and mentors foster growth and learning especially for a new researcher like me. The process of academic writing has led to significant personal and professional growth for me. Hearing stories of how other researchers have developed new skills, gained confidence, or shifted their perspectives is truly inspiring.”
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Hemanathan Praemanathan
Dr. Hemanathan Praemanathan got his medical degree from Kursk State Medical University in Russia in 2017 and began practicing as a medical doctor that same year. Currently, he is in his second year of postgraduate training in general surgery at the National University of Malaysia. He has also passed the Membership Exam of the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (MRCS). In addition to his clinical responsibilities, he is actively involved in scientific research, including writing case reports and conducting studies. He strongly advocates for evidence-based medicine, which he believes is essential for advancing as a surgical trainee. At present, he is conducting a research study on traumatic head injuries.
Dr. Praemanathan believes a high-quality academic paper should feature a well-defined research question or hypothesis, offering novel insights into the field. It must include a comprehensive literature review that situates the study within the context of existing research. The methodology must be rigorous, clearly described, and produce precise and replicable results. Effective critical analysis and discussion are key, providing in-depth interpretation and recognizing any limitations. The paper must be organized logically and articulated clearly, making it accessible to readers. Accurate citation and adherence to ethical standards are essential, as well as the paper's potential to influence the field or inspire further research.
In Dr. Praemanathan’s opinion, it is essential to adopt a rigorous and objective approach to avoid biases in research writing – begin by ensuring a comprehensive literature review to understand all relevant perspectives and avoid selective reporting. Use clear, transparent methodologies and report findings honestly, without manipulating data to fit preconceived notions. Peer review and feedback can help identify and address potential biases. Maintain objectivity by presenting both supporting and opposing evidence fairly. Additionally, be mindful of personal and institutional biases, and strive to minimize their influence on the research process and interpretation of results.
“To all the dedicated academic writers out there, your hard work and commitment are the backbone of scientific advancement. Every research paper, every experiment, and every piece of evidence you contribute helps push the boundaries of knowledge and drives progress in your field. Your dedication to rigorous inquiry and thorough analysis not only deepens our understanding, but also paves the way for future discoveries. Stay motivated, embrace the challenges, and remember that your efforts are crucial in shaping the future of science,” says Dr. Praemanathan.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Jay E. Maddock
Dr. Jay Maddock is a Regents Professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and Director of the Center for Health and Nature. He is also the Chair of the Nature and Health Alliance. Previously he served as Dean of the School of Public Health and Chief Wellness Officer at Texas A&M University and as Director and Chair of the University of Hawaii Public Health Program. His research has been featured in several national and international media outlets including The Today Show, CNN, Le Monde, the BBC, Scientific American, Eating Well, Prevention, and Good Housekeeping; and he has authored over 160 scientific articles and has served as principal investigator on over $20 million in extramural funding. He has received numerous awards throughout his career from the American Public Health Association, the Surgeon General, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, and many others. He is internationally recognized for his research in health behavior and social-ecological approaches to increasing physical activity and increasing time spent in nature.
In Dr. Maddock’s view, a good paper is at its core strong methodologically. The methods need to be written clearly and be easily reproducible. Also, a good paper is interesting. It looks at a problem in a new way and guides how to address the problem. In public health, the goal of a good paper should be to help improve public health practice and ultimately the health of populations.
Dr. Maddock thinks cognitive biases are present in all authors who want their ideas to work and be important. The best way to control for these in the scientific process is to make hypotheses a priori. It is important to avoid “fishing expeditions” where numerous relationships are assessed without theory or reason and whatever is significant is published. Journals can also help in this endeavor by being willing to publish studies with non-significant findings. One can learn a lot from a well-designed study that does not have significant findings.
To encourage other academic writers, Dr. Maddock says, “Writing is the final piece of the puzzle. If you have a poorly designed study, no amount of writing talent is going to help make it a sound research paper. Take the time in the beginning to think through the entire study. I often develop the tables and analysis plan before I even collect the data. This will help in asking the right questions and not asking ones that you don’t need. The paper from a well-designed study writes itself. Don’t worry about rejection. One paper that I thought was very good was rejected by four journals before finally being accepted in the fifth one. It turns out that it was just ahead of its time. Today it has been cited more than 500 times and is seen as seminal in the field.”
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Giuseppe Minervini
Dr. Giuseppe Minervini graduated with honors in Dental Medicine in 2016. During his studies, he participated in the Erasmus program at “Rey Juan Carlos Alcorcón” in Madrid, Spain. He earned his Postgraduate Diploma in Orthodontics in 2020 and later obtained his PhD from the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in Naples, Italy. He is a leading expert in temporomandibular disorders, ranked among the top 10 experts globally on Scopus, and is also listed in the Stanford-Elsevier Top 2% Scientists List 2024. His research interests span biomedical and biomaterials applications for craniofacial, oral, and temporomandibular regions. He has published over 203 articles and presented more than 70 posters. He is also involved as an editor for multiple dental journals and is an active member of SIDO, EOS, and GSID. Dr. Minervini is a frequent speaker at international conferences and has received numerous awards for his contributions to the field.
Dr. Minervini thinks the essential elements of a good academic paper include clarity of purpose, a well-structured and comprehensive review of the literature, and a solid methodological foundation. A clear presentation of results backed by accurate and rigorous data analysis is also crucial. The discussion should link the findings to existing knowledge, offering new insights and practical applications. Lastly, precise language and adherence to journal guidelines are key to ensuring a paper’s impact and reach.
Dr. Minervini asserts authors should ensure that their research addresses a significant problem and contributes new knowledge or perspectives to the field. They must also be thorough in the literature review, framing their work in the context of existing research. Precision in experimental design, data collection, and statistical analysis is essential. Authors should also be mindful of ethical considerations, proper citation practices, and clear, concise writing to make their work accessible to the scientific community.
“To all academic writers, persistence and dedication are key. Each study, regardless of its challenges, is a step forward in expanding knowledge and making a meaningful impact on science and society. Stay focused, collaborate widely, and always aim for excellence in research integrity and innovation. Every contribution, big or small, helps to drive scientific progress and improve lives,” says Dr. Minervini.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Linda Henry
Dr. Linda Henry started her career as a critical care nurse before turning to public and global health following the obtainment of her PhD in health services research. She currently holds two positions, one as a research investigator for the Medicine Service Line of Inova Health System in Falls Church, VA (USA) and as a research consultant for The Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Disease, Washington DC (USA). Given the duality of her positions, her current research interests span from clinical inpatient outcomes to public and global health issues of suicide, drug and alcohol use disorders, chronic liver disease and their respective outcomes as well as potential interventions to overcome barriers to improve outcomes.
JPHE: What authors have to bear in mind during preparation of a paper?
Dr. Henry: There are several things that authors have to bear in mind when preparing a paper. First, you need to make sure that you have done a thorough review of the literature, so that an author understands what the current topics are and where there are still knowledge gaps before even starting a study or a research project. Knowing what has been written on the topic and what still remains to be written will help an author arrange their writing of a review paper of which its role is to provide a comprehensive source document on the state of the subject matter. This source document can then help to better understand what questions may still remain to be answered by other investigators or oneself.
Second, rewriting is all part of the process of producing a publication. It is important to recognize that as an author, one may have to go all the way to the beginning of the paper and rewrite it several times in order to make sure the paper flows well while also making sure that it is introducing the subject matter so that your conclusions match what you have stated.
Third is to not get discouraged about rejections - it happens to everyone all the time especially if you are writing a lot.
Fourth, if your paper is reviewed and comments are received, it is always a good idea to briefly read through the comments to get an idea of what is being requested and then set the comments aside for 24 hours or so. I say this because sometimes the comments and revisions requests may be taken as an afront to you as an author. However, after letting any emotions that may have arisen after reading through the comments rest, one may see that the comments are not so bad after taking some time to mull them over. In most cases, the reviewer comments make one’s work much stronger and more applicable to the audience.
JPHE: Why do you choose to publish in JPHE?
Dr. Henry: I have chosen to publish in JPHE because of its broad range of topics covered. JPHE also provides an excellent platform to help disseminate the research that we conduct.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Schuyler H. DeBree
Schuyler DeBree is a communication strategist focused on public health issues, and specially climate-driven environmental risks. She works for RTI International where she uses qualitative research and human-centered design principles to inspire positive behavior change. She uses mixed-method research to gather audience insights, often including interviews, focus groups, and usability testing to ensure effectiveness and cultural appropriateness. Recently, she has worked on NOAA-funded research to understand flood risk communication networks, and EPA-funded work to build capacity in communities facing environmental injustice. Climate change, and intersecting equity issues, motivate Schuyler’s work. While completing her honors thesis at Duke University, she studied Sustainable Certifications in the Kenyan Tea industry. Her interest is persistent in how human systems can mitigate and adapt to climate change, and she continues to be inspired by creative solutions, such as poetry and visual art. Follow Schuyler on Instagram and LinkedIn.
JPHE: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?
Schuyler: For me, the biggest barrier to academic writing was understanding the landscape of opportunities. The number of different journals, types of submission, and associated requirements for each, made me feel overwhelming and I did not know where I could best add value. Having mentors, such as Dr. Brian Southwell and Dr. Jill Brown, who both have significant publishing experience, reduced my barrier for entry. They shared the JPHE writing opportunity with me and made me feel completely confident that the journal was a great fit for what we had to offer. My mentors also significantly reduced academic writing difficulties following submission, such as helping me understand how to effectively respond to reviewer’s comments. Without their guidance, I know I would have spent excessive time and unnecessary anxiety on deliberating how to best express gratitude for reviewers and confidence in my work.
JPHE: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?
Schuyler: The gold standard for evidence synthesis is a systematic review. However, a systematic review is not always possible based on time, budget, and other constraints. At times when systematic review is not feasible, I try to be aware of my bias in which evidence I choose to synthesize and analyze. Inherently, the research we choose to cite and incorporate into our writing is bias. We all have papers, research, and researchers that we are most familiar with. This is valuable overall—it is evidence of deep work and commitment to a topic. However, I try to search for perspectives and evidence that are different or contradictory to my own too during evidence synthesis. When we only have limited time and space to collect and highlight evidence, it is easier to share the work that we are most familiar with. I hope to continue to surround myself with researchers who seek out opposing evidence, or evidence framed by a very different perspective. Openness to opposing views is the best way we can stay committed to finding objective truths.
JPHE: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflicts of Interest (COI)?
Schuyler: It is important for authors to disclose COI from numerous perspectives. From the perspective of the readers, it is essential to be aware of any interests that the authors hold that may influence their writing or research. It helps the readers to make informed judgements about the research findings, based on how a COI may impact the work. From the perspective of the authors, disclosing COI is an important step in building self-awareness of bias. When disclosing, researchers acknowledge any explicit and external COI. This step hopefully also spurs authors to reflect on any implicit or internal bias. All authors bring bias to the table, even in the simple and foundational act of choosing what to research, as it is influenced by either funding and/or personal interests. Disclosing COI is an essential step for identifying and naming external bias, and it also allows us time and space to reflect on internal bias.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)
Claudio Dalla Vecchia
Claudio Dalla Vecchia is an emergency medicine specialist registrar working in Dublin, Ireland. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Emergency Physicians (RCEM) and is an accredited mentor for the Focused Ultrasound in Intensive Care (FUSIC). His interests are in critical care and Point of Care Ultrasound. He regularly instructs in Basic Emergency Ultrasound skills workshop within the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (RCSI) and has developed guidelines and quality improvement projects in the use of regional anesthetic blocks for rib injuries. He has published in different topics in the field of Emergency Medicine and has been a speaker at national and international conferences. He is currently completing a MsC in Healthcare Management with the RCSI. Follow Dr. Vecchia on X.
Dr. Vecchia believes that a good academic paper consists of a good research question and sound methodology. An appropriate and well-structured aim is the key to select a suitable methodology. The manuscript should also generate new knowledge, building from the existing literature. Understanding the previous literature on the topic and spending time to critically appraise others work is immensely beneficial. He adds, “It is also worth considering what support is available in your institution that can simplify your work. Help from librarians for systematized review and from statisticians for data analysis is often underrated.”
Additionally, Dr. Vecchia highlights that sharing data is important and beneficial. It allows reproduction of studies in different settings and ensures reliability of the research. It also simplifies further studies in the same field and reduces research waste.
(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)