In 2026, many QIMS 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)

Bum Joon Kim, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, South Korea

Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis, University Hospital Augsburg, Germany

Edwin H. G. Oei, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Garrett Regan, Mayo Clinic Rochester, USA

David J. Lubin, SUNY Upstate University Hospital, USA

Outstanding Author

Bum Joon Kim

Dr. Bum Joon Kim, MD, PhD, is a vascular neurologist at the Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. His research focuses on acute ischemic stroke, stroke mechanisms, cerebral small vessel disease, intracranial atherosclerosis, cardioembolic stroke, hemodynamics and post-stroke outcomes. He has led and participated in multiple clinical and imaging-based studies addressing stroke recurrence, early neurological deterioration, blood pressure management after endovascular thrombectomy, atrial fibrillation detection after embolic stroke of undetermined source, and antithrombotic strategies in high-risk stroke populations. His recent work includes randomized and multicenter studies on acute antiplatelet therapy, atrial fibrillation monitoring, and long-term outcomes in rare and sporadic small vessel disease. He is also actively involved in academic societies, clinical education, and editorial activities in the field of cerebrovascular disease.

In Dr. Kim’s opinion, curiosity is the most fundamental skill set of an author. As a clinician, many research questions arise naturally from caring for patients in daily practice. In stroke medicine, treatment strategies differ according to the underlying mechanism, so he often asks why a stroke occurred and how he can better identify its cause. Imaging plays a particularly important role in revealing stroke mechanisms, and quantitative imaging analysis can provide more objective and reproducible insights. This clinical curiosity, combined with rigorous methodology, objective interpretation, and clear communication, is essential for producing meaningful scientific work.

To avoid bias in writing, Dr. Kim stresses that it is important to separate clinical hypotheses from evidence-based conclusions. In data interpretation, using automated analysis programs, independent ratings by multiple reviewers, and structured processes to resolve discrepancies can help improve objectivity. Quantitative analysis is also important because it provides more reproducible and less subjective evidence. Authors should avoid overstating their findings, acknowledge limitations, and present both positive and negative results transparently.

“I believe that knowledge that is not shared cannot truly come alive. Since childhood, I have been accustomed to discussing scientific ideas with my father, who is a scientist, and this has shaped my interest in sharing new knowledge and engaging in constructive discussion. Academic writing is one way to communicate clinical questions, research findings, and new perspectives with the broader community. I am motivated by the belief that sharing and debating knowledge can help us learn from one another and ultimately move the field forward,” says Dr. Kim.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis

Dr. Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis, MD, is a radiologist with a special interest in interventional radiology and neuroradiology. After completing his training in radiology and advanced training in interventional radiology in Germany, he is currently pursuing further subspecialty training in neuroradiology at the University Hospital Augsburg. His clinical and research interests include embolization, neurovascular interventions, hepatobiliary interventions, vascular interventions, and simulation-based medical education. Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis is actively involved in academic research and scientific publishing, with multiple peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international conferences. His recent work includes the development of MANTA, a low-cost 3D-printed vascular phantom for simulation-based embolization training, which was presented at the European Conference on Embolotherapy (ET2026) in Valencia, Spain. His long-term goal is to advance image-guided minimally invasive therapies through clinical excellence, innovation, research, and education. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

The way Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis sees it, academic writing is how we share knowledge and learn from each other. Every study, case report, or review adds a small piece to the bigger picture. In medicine, academic writing helps turn clinical experience into information that others can use to improve patient care. In his opinion, it is important to look at one‘s own work honestly and not only focus on the positive results. Good scientific writing should discuss both strengths and limitations. Reading the literature carefully, comparing different viewpoints, and asking colleagues for feedback can also help make writing more critical and balanced.

In addition, Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis points out that institutional review board (IRB) approval helps ensure that research is conducted responsibly and that the rights and privacy of participants are protected. Patient safety and ethics should always come first. Without IRB approval, a study may not meet ethical standards, may not be accepted for publication, and could undermine trust in the research itself.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Edwin H. G. Oei

Edwin Oei, MD, PhD, is a Full Professor and Section Chief of Musculoskeletal Imaging in the Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine at Erasmus MC Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He is the principal investigator of the Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging Research Erasmus MC (ADMIRE) lab, comprising 15 PhD students and other affiliated researchers. His research focuses on optimization, validation and application of advanced, quantitative, imaging techniques to visualize multi-tissue changes in common musculoskeletal disorders such as osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, sports injuries, and chronic musculoskeletal pain. His team uses various imaging modalities, including MRI, (photon counting) CT, ultrasound, and hybrid PET-MRI. Prof. Oei is also involved in other research topics such as population imaging and artificial intelligence. He is an active member of various scientific societies and committees. He is the vice-president of the International Society of Osteoarthritis Imaging (ISOAI) and a recent past-president of the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology (ESMRMB). Connect with him on LinkedIn.

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

Prof. Oei: I believe the most common difficulties in academic writing is to step out of your bubble and translate your research findings into a message that speaks to the general readership of a journal, using language that is clear and easy to understand. Too often, we as scientists are so deeply engaged in our own research that we forget about the bigger picture, the relevance but also the shortcomings of our work, and how it relates to real-life problems. We also oftentimes use jargon that is common in our own research environment, but may be difficult to understand for readers from outside that niche.

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

Prof. Oei: Being a clinical scientist, it is not easy to find enough time to write papers. There is always the pressure of clinical workload and clinical managerial tasks. Fortunately, my department is quite generous in allocating dedicated research time for radiologists with a substantial research activity. Also, as the career progresses, it is more common to co-supervise PhD students with other scientists, meaning that I usually get to read and revise manuscripts at a more advanced stage than an initial draft version. Nevertheless, the most efficient time to work on a paper is usually outside of clinical working hours when it is easier to focus on writing for an extended period of time.

QIMS: What is fascinating about academic writing?

Prof. Oei: What I find fascinating about academic writing, is that the typical structure of scientific papers as well as authors guidelines such as word limits, forces scientists to think very critically about their own work and its relevance. You have to identify the key messages and convey these in a clear manner to the readers, leaving out non-essential analyses and results (which, in fact, may have required a lot of work!). In all, this generally strengthens the interpretation of research findings and the link to clinical relevance. Oftentimes less is more!

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Garrett Regan

Garrett Regan is a fifth-year Biomedical Engineering PhD student at Mayo Clinic Rochester. He works under his advisor, Dr. David Holmes III, PhD, in the Biomedical Analytics and Computational Engineering (BACE) laboratory. His research focuses technically on developing uncertainty quantification methods for clinical artificial intelligence models, and clinically on the development of AI-based tools to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of Crohn’s Disease. Specifically, his primary thesis project centers on the development of an AI copilot tool to support the radiologic measurement of intestinal strictures—a common complication of Crohn’s Disease—in ongoing clinical trials. Follow him on LinkedIn.

Garrett believes that all good academic papers are founded on rigorously collected and analyzed data. With enough intellectual curiosity, any unique research idea can be transformed into a quality academic paper. In his opinion, it is crucial to bear in mind the narrative one is trying to tell with the data. Articulating a cohesive story around one’s results is important for applying a greater meaning to findings. Additionally, understanding the audience of the journal will help direct this narrative when time comes to prepare the paper.

“My work sits uniquely at the intersection of technical development and clinical practice. I felt that QIMS provided an optimal balance between these audiences that would each understand the importance and contributions of my work,” says Garrett.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

David J. Lubin

Dr. David J. Lubin, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor, the Director of Researchand the Division Director, at the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY. He currently works in Voxel-based dosimetry for both pre-treatment and post-therapy management. He has also been getting into the foray of constructing and testing protein-based novel theranostics agents.

According to Dr. Lubin, a good academic paper should present material in a way that clearly illustrates the subject matter in the readers’ minds while also providing convincing arguments to support the acceptance of the author's hypotheses. The paper should encourage thoughtful discussion and inspire readers to ask further questions and propose experiments to explore the topic more deeply. Academic writing should foster growth in research and motivate additional work in the scientific area addressed in the paper.

Dr. Lubin claims that one of the most challenging aspects of academic writing is avoiding overly narrow arguments and presenting material effectively. It can be a fine line for staying unbiased, on the one hand, authors try to present their hypothesis and the arguments in the most convincing way possible, and yet they have to acknowledge realistically what the data say, what the limitations are in the experiments, and what the counter arguments are, and to give them a fair presentation. He believes that maintaining a careful balance is essential to avoid bias in academic writing. It is important to clearly present counterarguments and comprehensively address the points they raise.

“Follow your passions and curiosity and don’t give up! This guiding principle is especially crucial now, as researchers face heightened pressure to produce results despite having less time, fewer resources, and the growing complexity of research compared to previous years. Additionally, challenging is the scarcity of reviewers and the increased turnaround time of communication between authors and the journal. Despite all this, even if you have to stretch yourself a little here and there, in the end it will be worth it, and you will have added to the body of knowledge, and you will have something you can look back on and be proud of,” says Dr. Lubin.

(by Sasa Zhu, Masaki Lo)