In 2025, many VATS 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)

Alberto Cabañero Sánchez, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Spain

Nabih Berjaoui, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Outstanding Author

Alberto Cabañero Sánchez

Dr. Alberto Cabañero Sánchez obtained his medical degree from the Complutense University of Madrid in 2003. He completed his residency in thoracic surgery at the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital in Madrid, finishing in 2009. Since then, he has been a member of the hospital’s thoracic surgery department, where he focuses primarily on thoracic oncology. He currently serves as the residency program coordinator and patient safety lead for the department. He is a member of the most prominent national and international societies related to thoracic surgery and respiratory diseases, and he collaborates with various clinical committees within his hospital and beyond. Dr. Cabañero is dedicated to the full spectrum of thoracic surgery, with a strong emphasis on minimally invasive techniques and thoracic oncology. Alongside the clinical work, his research is centered on minimally invasive surgical approaches, evaluation of surgical risk, multimodal management of surgical patients and surgical education. Follow him on ORCID and LinkedIn.

VATS: What are the key skill sets of an author?

Dr. Cabañero: I believe that a good writer of scientific articles, especially in the medical and surgical fields, must possess several key skills. First, clarity of communication: one must be able to express complex ideas accurately and understandably, without ambiguity. Second, a critical and analytical mindset: one must know how to interpret results, identify limitations, and contextualize findings within the existing body of evidence. Third, methodological rigor. It's not just about describing what one did in the operating room, but also justifying why it was done that way, how biases were controlled, and how it can be replicated. Fourth, the ability to synthesize: knowing how to separate the relevant from the incidental, both in writing and in the literature review. And finally, something very important: scientific ethics and honesty. Data must be reported transparently, without embellishment, even if the results do not come as expected. Ultimately, writing a scientific article is not just about recounting a clinical experience, but contributing responsibly to the advancement of medical knowledge.

VATS: How to avoid biases in one’s writing?

Dr. Cabañero: Avoiding bias when writing a scientific article is essential for the work to be credible and useful to the community. One of the first things is to recognize that we all have biases, and that's precisely why it's important to establish clear methods from the study design. For example, to minimize selection bias, it's crucial to define well-founded inclusion and exclusion criteria and apply them systematically. It's also helpful to work with comprehensive and prospective databases, if possible. During the interpretation of the results, we must be careful with confirmation bias: avoid interpreting the data only to confirm what we expect. It's key here to have a critical attitude and, if possible, involve other colleagues in the review, who have an external and objective perspective. Another measure is to be transparent about the study's limitations. This doesn't detract from the value of the work; on the contrary, it demonstrates scientific maturity. And finally, following guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, or PRISMA—depending on the type of study—greatly helps maintain a structured and objective framework for presenting data honestly and reproducible.

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

Dr. Cabañero: It's true that writing scientific articles requires time, effort, and discipline, especially when combined with clinical practice. But there are several deep motivations that drive us to do so. First, there is a commitment to knowledge and the continuous improvement of our specialty. Sharing what we learn—whether through a case series, a technical innovation, or an analysis of results—allows others to learn from our experience, avoid mistakes, or even improve our proposals. Second, there is an academic and educational motivation. Scientific writing forces us to study more deeply, to question ourselves, to critically review the literature, and to better understand what we do in the operating room. In many cases, writing is also a way of teaching and leaving a mark. Third, there is professional recognition. Publishing helps position us in the medical community, facilitates collaborations, and opens doors to conferences, scholarships, or multicenter projects. And finally, a very personal motivation: scientific curiosity. That requires the understanding of why something works, why something fails, or if what we do really has an impact. Writing is a way to transform that curiosity into something useful, into evidence that can improve patient care.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Nabih Berjaoui

Dr. Nabih Berjaoui is a Clinical Fellow in Plastic Surgery at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, United Kingdom. He has earned his MBBS from St George’s, University of London, and holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the American University of Beirut. His research primarily focuses on thoracic surgery, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and musculoskeletal disorders, with a particular emphasis on robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer treatment. Recent work includes comparative studies between robot-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer, narrative reviews on lobectomy approaches, and clinical case reports spanning orthopaedic and spinal conditions. Dr. Berjaoui is particularly interested in integrating surgical innovation with clinical outcomes research to improve patient care across oncologic and reconstructive disciplines. His work reflects his entrepreneurial spirit and commitment to patient well-being. He has also participated in orthopaedic, plastics and spinal surgery narrative reviews and case reports. His passion lies in applying modern surgical instruments to clinical practice and evaluating their impact on patient recovery and quality of life, the evidence-based medicine principles, particularly for cancer and reconstructive surgery patients. Connect with Dr. Berjaoui on LinkedIn.

The way Dr. Berjaoui sees it, academic writing is a fundamental tool in science, facilitating the structured and peer-reviewed dissemination of new knowledge. It enables reproducibility, scholarly debate, and the cumulative advancement of research. Through rigorous documentation with clarity, academic writing ensures that findings are accessible, credible, and subject to scrutiny, forming the basis for further investigation and innovation. Beyond clinical practice, he advocates academic writing with an important role in science. For him, writing means so much more than simply publishing data. He approaches it as a way to establish credibility, facilitate conversations, and advance progress in the field. He adds, “We solve issues through critical thinking, which is what critical writing should embrace – looking beyond the results.”

In Dr. Berjaoui’s opinion, critical academic writing involves more than describing results; it requires thoughtful analysis, synthesis of existing literature, and evaluation of methodologies and outcomes. To write critically, one should engage deeply with existing evidence, highlight limitations, compare interpretations, and provide logical reasoning supported by data. Clarity, coherence, and an awareness of context are essential to articulate a meaningful scholarly argument.

In addition, Dr. Berjaoui higlights that seeking institutional review board (IRB) approval is essential for upholding ethical standards in research involving human participants. It ensures compliance with legal and institutional guidelines and safeguards participant welfare. Omitting this process can result in serious consequences, including publication rejection, reputational harm, legal liability, and, most critically, ethical violations that may compromise participant safety and the integrity of the research itself.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)