In 2025, many AOT 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 (2025)

Luke Borg, Mater Dei Hospital, Malta

Htar Htar Aung, IMU University, Malaysia

Outstanding Author

Luke Borg

Mr. Luke Borg is a surgical trainee working in Mater Dei Hospital, Malta. He completed his MD in 2021, graduating with Distinction. He pursued his surgical interest further, classifying for an M.Sc at the University of Edinburgh as well as his M.R.C.S  in 2024. His special interest is in Head and Neck surgery, having previously worked in both Endocrine Surgery as well as the field of Otorhinolaryngology. His clinical research has been a valuable attribute of his career, having published in a variety of international journals including the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Annals of the Royal College of Surgery, as well as the Annals of Thyroid Surgery, with various oral international presentations and various pieces looking at various attributes of both thyroid surgery and general surgery pertinent topics. Currently, he also serves as a Junior Lecturer at the University of Malta.

AOT: What do you regard as a good academic paper?

Luke: Good academic writing excels both in principle and in technique. In this ever-growing age of evidence-based medicine, the quality of evidence is becoming more and more the priority over the quantity. First and foremost, good research revolves around a question. In principle, a question should be a topic that truly resonates with the author. The best research comes from genuine curiosity about the etiology, the mechanism of action, the pathophysiology and the anatomy of the patients that we care for on a day-to-day basis. Having insight and care to patients will enable the researcher to find the best methodology, statistically relevant tools and the best level of quality evidence to back up the conclusions. From a technical standpoint, the key to a good academic paper is structure. Modern day reporting guidelines such as the PICO framework, the PRISMA guidelines, the EQUATOR Network and many others facilitate this significantly. Good papers should include a clear summating abstract that intrigues the readers, as well as a good flow between clear and distinct different sections. In summary, a good paper should both have an authentic clear question, as well as an easy-to-follow structured answer.

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

Luke: I think there are two major hurdles often encountered.  The first is coming up with the idea in the first place and the second is having the perseverance follow through. I consider my limited experience, when compared to esteemed peers considered as fellow outstanding authors, as an asset in perception. The younger, more modern trend of doctors tend to aim to write simply for writing’s sake. Authors hence prioritize the quantity of their projects over published quality. In my relatively limited but ever-growing interest and experience, I have learned that the best ideas come from questions that occur during outpatient clinics, discussions during a cup of coffee between theatre cases and personal passion projects. I have come across pieces of writing that took years of effort, mountains of bureaucracy, and hundreds of inefficient systems, I consider these truly the most inspiring.

AOT: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Luke: Doctors are by nature, bred in years of curiosity and study. Day-to-day care, long hours, pandemics, and work-related exhaustion can change the mindset of a scientist into that of a worker. Academic writing is a means to prove this wrong. It is an opportunity for both the most experienced and the most junior to simply ask why, to change question guidelines, and perhaps even trigger positive change. Academic writing is responsible for consultants improving recommendations that they have practiced over years. It is also responsible for showing graduates that their books might be out-of-date. In my humble opinion, academic writing is responsible for keeping the science behind medicine alive. To fellow junior doctors reading this, I truly encourage you to find good tutors and mentors, as I was very lucky to find in my career and to take on such projects head on, it might turn out much better than you think!

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Htar Htar Aung

Dr. Htar Htar Aung is currently an Associate Professor, Anatomy Discipline, at School of Medicine, IMU University. She graduated from the University of Medicine, Yangon, and completed her residency at Yangon General Hospital. In 2001, she earned her doctoral degree in Medical Sciences (Anatomy) from the Graduate School of Medical Science at Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan, through a Japanese Government Monbukagakusho Scholarship. She also holds a Postgraduate Certificate in Health Professions Education from IMU. As an active researcher, her interests include systematic reviews, clinical anatomy, and medical education. She is an Examiner with the Royal College of Surgeons England and a reviewer for reputed journals in systematic review and Anatomy. She has served as a Topic Co-Editor for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Personalised Medicine to Practical Guidelines in Frontiers in Pharmacology.

Academic writing is essential in science, according to Dr. Aung, as it facilitates the clear communication of research findings, theories, and methodologies. It ensures knowledge being systematically documented and peer-reviewed, knowledge sharing, critical thinking, enabling collaboration, and further advancements. By adhering to formal standards, academic writing upholds the credibility and reliability of scientific discourse, fostering progress across disciplines.

To ensure writing is critical, Dr. Aung focuses on analyzing and evaluating ideas rather than simply describing them. It includes asking critical questions, comparing different perspectives, using evidence to support arguments, and evaluating the pieces of evidence. She believes researchers should reflect on the implications and limitations of ideas while avoiding personal bias. Researchers should also structure their writing logically, use precise language, and incorporate credible sources. Finally, they should target to offer new insights or interpretations rather than reiterating existing knowledge.

In addition, Dr. Aung points out that applying for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is critical in the research process, particularly for studies involving human participants. This step ensures the ethical conduct of research and the protection of participants’ rights, welfare, and privacy. If this process is omitted, researchers risk ethical violations, legal consequences, loss of credibility, and potential harm to participants. Additionally, studies lacking IRB approval may not be publishable, and funding agencies or institutions may revoke support. IRB approval ensures accountability and the integrity of the research process.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)