In 2026, many JLPM 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)

Kohki Okada, Kyoto Tachibana University, Japan

Robert Moore, King’s College London, UK

Emir Tas, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, USA

Outstanding Author

Kohki Okada

Kohki Okada, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Technology and Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences at Kyoto Tachibana University, Japan. He earned his Ph.D. in Human Health Sciences from Kyoto University. His research expertise lies in Clinical Chemistry, with a particular focus on urinalysis, feces examination, and toxicology. His recent work centers on the identification of biomarkers for inflammatory bowel disease, the development of laboratory methods for carbonic anhydrase, and the creation of new laboratory techniques for diagnosing natural toxin-induced food poisoning. Follow him on Research Map and ORCID.

Dr. Okada thinks that the key skill sets of an author include perseverance, research ethics, critical thinking, and the ability to respond constructively to peer review. First, authors need the patience and determination to continue experiments carefully, even when results are not as expected. Second, a strong ethical mindset is essential. Authors must never fabricate, falsify, or manipulate data, and they should report their findings honestly. Third, writing a scientific paper requires the ability to interpret results logically and discuss their significance in the context of previous studies. Finally, authors should be able to respond appropriately to reviewers’ comments. Peer review is an important process for improving the quality of a manuscript, so authors need to accept criticism constructively and revise their work sincerely.

In Dr. Okada’s view, it is difficult to completely eliminate bias when the writing is conducted alone, because authors may unconsciously emphasize results or interpretations that support their own expectations. Therefore, he believes that it is important to have the manuscript read by several researchers with different perspectives. Feedback from co-authors, colleagues, and reviewers can help identify unclear logic, overstatements, or one-sided interpretations. Authors should also respond sincerely to such advice and be willing to revise their manuscript when necessary. In this way, the objectivity and reliability of scientific writing can be improved.

“My greatest motivation to write is the joy of making new discoveries through research that I have planned and conducted myself. I feel a strong sense of achievement when such findings can be organized into a scientific paper and shared with researchers around the world. For me, publishing a paper is not only a way to report results, but also an important opportunity to contribute, even in a small way, to the advancement of science. The desire to reach that point is what strongly motivates me to continue academic writing,” says Dr. Okada.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Robert Moore

Robert Moore is a practising Principal Clinical Scientist working across both Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical and Forensic Toxicology. He attained a BSc from the University of Westminster and an MSc from University College London, and he is currently undertaking a PhD at King’s College London. His clinical work spans general clinical biochemistry and he has had an interest in vitamin B12 for a long period, going back to his MSc project, with a portion of his time also spent working on post-mortem toxicology. Most of his recent research has been on the toxicology side, and he has published on unusual toxicology findings and contributed considerably to the understanding of novel synthetic opioids, including nitazenes and orphine compounds. In his spare time, he also co-hosts The Tox Lab Podcast, a professional toxicology podcast aimed at sharing novel toxicology research with a wider audience. Follow him on LinkedIn.

JLPM: What are the most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing?

Robert: I think one of the big challenges is turning a subject you know very well into a written format that someone with significantly less background knowledge than yourself can understand and follow. Another challenge, and I have had to teach myself this technique, is just allowing yourself to write, because if I over think what I am trying to say, I end up writing nothing. Revisions can happen further down the line.

JLPM: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to write papers?

Robert: This is really tricky, I have found I have to accept that if I want a dedicated writing block for some solid editing, I need to schedule it in (and invariably that is on a day off / weekend). I find writing some bits down as we go though is helpful, and finding a few minutes for occasional sentences when they pop into my mind helps a bit, but it is a real struggle. Ultimately, I think consistency is more important than intensity, and once a big deadline is behind you, it isn’t long before the next paper comes along!

JLPM: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Robert: It is a different style of writing from clinical report writing or medicolegal writing. I also enjoy the feeling of getting your data out there for others to see and comment on, as that is how we properly test our evidence. I find the review process can be interesting too – sometimes you come across a reviewer who has a totally different (but valid) perspective on what you have written and it complexly changes your approach to things.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Emir Tas

Dr. Emir Tas, MD, is a physician–scientist in the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA. His work focuses on understanding early cardiovascular risk in youth with type 1 diabetes, particularly how adiposity and insulin resistance contribute to vascular dysfunction. He leads and collaborates on longitudinal studies that combine advanced vascular, autonomic, and body composition assessments to better define early disease pathways. Alongside his research, Dr. Tas is deeply involved in clinical care, working closely with children and adolescents with complex endocrine and metabolic conditions. This dual role shapes his perspective, allowing him to connect patient experiences with scientific discovery. His work is driven by a commitment to translating clinical insight into meaningful research that can improve long-term health outcomes for children. Learn more about him here.

JLPM: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Tas: For me, academic writing is not only about reporting results; it is also a way of thinking more clearly. When I write, I better understand my own ideas. It forces me to ask why a question is important and what the findings truly mean. As a physician–scientist working with both patients and data, writing helps me connect these two worlds. It allows me to translate clinical experience into scientific knowledge and bring research findings back to patient care. I also see writing as a form of communication within the scientific community. If it is clear and honest, others can understand, question, and build on the work. In this way, writing helps science grow. Scientific writing is not only a technical skill but also a way to give meaning to the work we do.

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

Dr. Tas: I believe critical writing starts with being honest with yourself. When I write, I try to ask simple questions: What do I truly know? What am I uncertain about? What could be wrong? It is easy to focus on strong results, but it is more important to also acknowledge limitations and uncertainty. This makes the work more realistic and useful for others. Another important aspect is engaging with the existing literature and different perspectives. Careful reading helps me understand alternative viewpoints. Feedback from mentors and colleagues is also very valuable, as they often notice things I may miss. Over time, I have learned that being critical does not mean being negative; it means being careful, balanced, and open-minded.

JLPM: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?

Dr. Tas: As a clinician conducting human research, this is something I think about often. Research is not only about data; it is about people. Because of this, we have a responsibility to protect participants. IRB approval helps ensure that research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner. It protects the rights, privacy, and well-being of participants and helps build trust, especially when working with patients and families. If IRB approval is omitted, there can be serious consequences. Participants may be harmed, and trust in research can be lost. In addition, the work may not be eligible for publication or funding. For me, IRB approval is not just a formal requirement, it is part of respecting the individuals who make research possible.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)