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

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)