In 2026, many ACR 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)

Aymen Zgolli, Centre Hospitalier de Rambouillet, France

Olena Tsurkalenko, The Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Swetang J. Shah, Bay Area Community Health, USA

Outstanding Author

Aymen Zgolli

Dr. Aymen Zgolli is an orthopedic and trauma surgeon currently working at Centre Hospitalier de Rambouillet in France. As a surgeon in a public hospital, he still maintains an active trauma practice, including hip arthroplasty, alongside elective arthroscopic and arthroplasty surgery of the shoulder, elbow, and knee. He is currently working on developing a database platform within his hospital to increase the number of his scientific publications, particularly in the fields of shoulder, elbow, and knee surgery.

Dr. Zgolli believes that a good academic paper is clear, focused, and grounded in evidence. It presents a well-defined research question, situates it within existing literature, and uses appropriate methods to address it. The argument should be logical, coherent, and supported by credible data or analysis. Strong papers are transparent about limitations, avoid unnecessary jargon, and contribute something meaningful—whether new findings, a fresh perspective, or a synthesis of ideas. Good structure and precise writing make it accessible, while proper citation ensures intellectual honesty.

In Dr. Zgolli’s view, avoiding bias starts with awareness. It is essential to question assumptions, utilize diverse and credible sources, and fairly represent opposing viewpoints. Stick to evidence rather than opinion, and be careful with language that may imply judgment. Peer review and feedback can reveal blind spots. It also helps to separate data from interpretation and to clearly acknowledge uncertainty or limitations in the work.

“Our work matters, even when progress feels slow. Advancing knowledge often requires persistence, revision, and patience. Small contributions build the foundation for larger breakthroughs. Stay curious, remain open to critique, and remember that clarity and honesty in your writing are as valuable as originality. Keep going—your efforts are part of a much bigger intellectual journey,” says Dr. Zgolli.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Olena Tsurkalenko

Dr. Olena Tsurkalenko is affiliated with clinical and academic research in neurology with a particular interest in dementia, headache medicine, and rare neurological presentations. Previously, she worked as an associate professor at a medical university in Ukraine, but due to the war, she was forced to leave the country and relocate to Luxembourg. She currently continues her clinical and research work in collaboration with the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg and the Luxembourg Institute of Health. Her recent work has focused on complex clinical case reports involving neurovascular pathology, including spinal arteriovenous fistulas, optic pathway gliomas, and vascular steal syndromes associated with NF1. She is particularly interested in multidisciplinary clinical research, scientific writing, and the academic presentation of rare neurological disorders.

Dr. Tsurkalenko believes that a strong academic paper rests on three pillars: clarity, rigor, and relevance.

1. Clear research question: the paper must address a well-defined clinical or scientific problem
2. Methodological rigor: appropriate design, reproducibility, and transparent reporting
3. Logical structure: coherent flow from introduction to conclusion
4. Evidence-based discussion: interpretation grounded in data, not speculation
5. Original contribution: even in case reports, there should be a meaningful insight

In Dr. Tsurkalenko’s opinion, effective academic authors possess several interconnected skills, including critical thinking, scientific literacy, structured writing, attention to detail, resilience, and collaboration. They should be able to interpret data critically and question assumptions, while also understanding research methodology and existing literature. In addition, strong academic writing requires the ability to present complex ideas clearly and logically, with accuracy in terminology, references, and data reporting. Academic authors also need resilience to respond constructively to peer review and revisions, as well as collaboration skills, particularly in multidisciplinary clinical and research work. In her experience, an important skill is editing discipline—understanding what to remove is just as crucial as knowing what to include.

“One memorable aspect of writing this paper was how the case itself evolved during the writing process. Initially, it seemed like a relatively straightforward presentation, but as we reviewed imaging and clinical data more deeply, we realized we were dealing with a rare combination of conditions that required careful interpretation. At one point, we had to revisit our initial assumptions and restructure the discussion entirely. That moment was a reminder that academic writing is not just about reporting results; it is an extension of clinical reasoning. It also highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, as insights from different specialties helped refine both the diagnosis and the narrative of the paper,” says Dr. Tsurkalenko.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Swetang J. Shah

Dr. Swetang J. Shah, MD, MPH, FAAP, is a pediatrician, healthcare leader, and advocate for equitable community-based care. As Clinical Director of Pediatrics at Bay Area Community Health in California, he works closely with underserved populations and focuses on building practical, sustainable solutions that improve pediatric outcomes in real-world clinical settings. His work spans trauma-informed care, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) screening, point-of-care lead testing, and quality improvement initiatives within federally qualified health centers. He is particularly passionate about translating frontline clinical challenges into scalable systems-based improvements that support both patients and healthcare teams. In addition to patient care and leadership, he is involved in mentorship and interdisciplinary education. His academic interests center on preventive pediatrics, health equity, and implementation strategies that make evidence-based care more accessible in community practice.

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

Dr. Shah: One of the greatest challenges in academic writing is transforming complex clinical experiences into a story that is both scientifically rigorous and engaging for readers. Many clinicians and researchers have meaningful insights to share, but organizing data, maintaining clarity, and communicating the broader significance of the work can be difficult. Another challenge is balancing depth with simplicity. Medical writing should be accurate and evidence-based, but it should also remain understandable and relatable to readers from different backgrounds and specialties. Time is another major factor, especially for physicians managing patient care, leadership responsibilities, and research simultaneously. I also think many authors struggle with self-editing. We become emotionally invested in our projects, so learning how to present findings objectively and concisely takes practice. Finally, the peer-review process can be demanding, but in my experience, constructive feedback often strengthens both the manuscript and the author as a scholar.

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

Dr. Shah: Balancing clinical medicine, leadership, and academic writing is definitely challenging, especially in community healthcare, where the pace can be unpredictable. For me, writing does not usually happen in long, uninterrupted blocks of time. Instead, it happens gradually through consistency and intentional effort. Many of my research ideas originate directly from patient care or operational challenges I observe in daily practice. I often document thoughts, clinical observations, or workflow ideas in real time and revisit them later when developing a manuscript. That process helps keep the writing grounded in practical experience rather than purely theoretical discussion. I also believe collaboration is essential. Working with multidisciplinary colleagues not only improves the quality of the paper but also makes the process more manageable and intellectually rewarding. Most importantly, I remind myself that publishing is not only about academic achievement—it is about sharing lessons that may ultimately improve patient care, especially for vulnerable populations.

ACR: From an author’s perspective, do you think it is important to follow reporting guidelines during preparation of manuscripts?

Dr. Shah: Absolutely. Reporting guidelines are important because they strengthen the clarity, transparency, and credibility of scientific communication. In medicine, even valuable findings can lose impact if important details are missing or presented inconsistently. Guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and CARE provide a structured framework that helps authors communicate their work more effectively. From an author’s perspective, these guidelines are not simply administrative checklists; they help ensure that readers can fully understand the methodology, clinical reasoning, limitations, and real-world relevance of the work. This becomes especially important in clinical research and case reports, where small details may significantly influence interpretation. For example, CARE guidelines encourage authors to present a complete clinical narrative, including timelines, diagnostic decision-making, and patient-centered perspectives. Ultimately, following reporting guidelines improves reproducibility, supports stronger peer review, and helps build trust within the scientific community.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)