In 2026, many authors bring new findings, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to thoracic disease 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 (2026)

Hatem Tolba, University of Missouri–Columbia, USA

Kei Harada, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, Japan

Johanna Ospel, University of Calgary, Canada

Outstanding Author

Hatem Tolba

Dr. Hatem Tolba is a Vascular Neurologist and Neuro-Endovascular fellow at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Prior to his neurology training, he pursed cardiology and interventional cardiology training at the Egyptian National Heart Institute in Cairo, Egypt, where he developed a foundation in catheter-based therapies. He subsequently pursued dedicated research training at the Yale Comprehensive Epilepsy Center before completing his neurology residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin. His academic interests focus on cerebrovascular disease, endovascular therapies, and minimally invasive interventions. Given his dual training, he has a particular interest in the brain–heart axis and the complex interplay between cardiovascular and neurological disease. Dr. Tolba has contributed to multiple peer-reviewed publications and has presented at major international conferences such as the International Stroke Conference and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology annual meetings. His work aims to advance endovascular approaches and improve patient outcomes through translational research and procedural innovation. Follow him on LinkedIn and X.

Strong academic writing, in Dr. Tolba’s view, requires a combination of scientific rigor, clarity of communication, and, most importantly, intellectual curiosity. A successful author must be able to critically appraise literature, synthesize complex information, and present it in a structured and friendly manner. Attention to detail, methodological understanding, and the ability to interpret data objectively are, however, essential. Equally important to the ability to communicate ideas clearly to a broad audience is to bridge the gap between technical expertise and daily clinical applicability.

According to Dr. Tolba, avoiding bias begins with a conscious commitment to objectivity. This includes using systematic approaches to literature review, clearly defining criteria, and acknowledging limitations transparently as one acknowledges strengths. Authors should rely on data rather than preconceived conclusions. Peer review and collaboration also play a crucial role in identifying and minimizing bias. Maintaining scientific integrity requires constant self-reflection and adherence to evidence-based medical reasoning.

“My primary motivation to engage in academic writing is the potential to contribute to advancing patient care mixed with own scientific curiosity. Academic writing allows all of us to translate clinical observations and research findings into knowledge that can influence practice and improve outcomes. In a rapidly evolving field like neurointervention, sharing insights and innovations is essential for collective progress. For me, the opportunity to be part of that broader scientific dialogue is deeply rewarding,” says Dr. Tolba.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Kei Harada

Dr. Kei Harada graduated from Yamaguchi University, a national university in Japan. Since 2010, he has been working at Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital as a neurovascular surgeon, engaging in both cerebrovascular microsurgery and endovascular therapy. He currently serves as a supervising physician in endovascular therapy. He has authored multiple papers focusing on protection methods in carotid artery stenting (CAS), analysis using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), and Japanese-made coils for cerebral aneurysms. Recently, he has also been actively uploading educational videos on neuroendovascular therapy to his platform, “Keihara channel”. Follow him on X.

A good academic paper, according to Dr. Harada, is one that scientifically addresses the clinical questions and doubts encountered in daily medical practice. For instance, his team previously experienced cases of cerebral ischemia during carotid artery stenting (CAS) despite utilizing what they considered “adequate protection”. Suspecting that there was a "gap" or vulnerability in the protection method, they dedicated their research efforts to scientifically proving this hypothesis.

In Dr. Harada’s opinion, the most challenging aspects in academic writing involve refining the methodology and elements required for proof, obtaining approval from the ethics committee, administering treatments under a strict protocol, and properly validating the results. Occasionally, the clinical outcomes differ from his initial predictions; however, it is crucial to carefully analyze and discuss the findings based objectively on the obtained data.

“Academic writing ultimately comes down to scientifically proving the efficacy of treatments and, as in doing so, saving the lives of future patients,” says Dr. Harada.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Johanna Ospel

Dr. Johanna Ospel is an Interventional Neuroradiologist, and Neurovascular/ Stroke Researcher at the University of Calgary Department of Clinical Neurosciences. She completed her medical studies and MD at the Friedrich-Schiller University (Germany), a PhD in Neurosciences at the University of Amsterdam (Netherlands), and a 5-year residency in Radiology and at the University of Basel (Switzerland), followed by a Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Fellowship at the University of Calgary. She still holds teaching and research positions at the University of Basel where she was appointed a “Privatdozentin” (Senior Lecturer) in 2023. She has co-authored over 300 editorials & peer-reviewed research articles on various topics in Cerebrovascular Diseases, Interventional Neuroradiology and Stroke Medicine. Her ongoing research aims to expand the indications of endovascular thrombectomy, notably to patients with medium vessel occlusions (MeVO) as well as patients with minor stroke, investigate associations between imaging biomarkers and post-stroke clinical outcomes, and to explore strategies for cerebroprotection in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Connect with her on X.

JNI: How to ensure one’s writing is critical?

Dr. Ospel: The biggest “mistake” I see people making, and I make myself, is lack of clarity in one’s writing. We tend to aim for eloquently phrased, convoluted sentences that “sound smart”, but that’s not helpful. Scientific writing needs to bring a point across in the easiest possible way. The easier and simpler your sentences the better – because it will help tired physicians who read your paper after a long day of work understand it better, and more quickly. Simple is good, and clarity is the highest priority. That is, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that the papers one writes are read, understood, and cited.

JNI: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Ospel: Absolutely yes, and I think in the medical world, we are too reluctant to disclose our conflicts. A COI does not always have to mean that we cannot be part of a project or a co-author on a given paper, but it is nevertheless important for the readers of a paper to know that a certain author received consulting fees or royalties or stocks from a company for example. In most cases, I think COIs can be managed, as it is hard to completely avoid them. However, I also think that for certain critical roles in a large research project, COIs should be very closely evaluated and in some circumstances, a change of roles and responsibilities may be needed because of existing conflicts.

JNI: Academic writing takes a lot of time and effort. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Ospel: There are a few things that motivate me to write. I think writing scientific papers is a way to convey your own ideas, concepts and hypotheses to your colleagues and the broader scientific community. It’s a way of “throwing an idea out there” and it’s in some ways a form of creative expression. I like to include quotes, examples and a little bit of speculation in my papers and enjoy the creative process of writing itself. I also think that, while AI tools may help us fine tune our writing, they should not be used to completely replace the writing process, and they don’t do a good job in doing so. Your individual “style of writing” gets lost if you let AI write everything for you. People don’t need perfection, but they value uniqueness and I think that this will become more important in the future.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)