In 2025, many 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 perspectives and insightful views as authors.

Outstanding Authors (2025)

Daniel Craighead, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, USA

Kim Daniels, PXL University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Belgium

Amanda Love, Griffith University, Australia

Evans Abotsi, Ghana Health Service, Ghana

Melissa J. Vilaro, University of Florida, USA

Outstanding Author

Daniel H. Craighead

Dr. Daniel Craighead is an Assistant Professor in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities (USA). He is an integrative cardiovascular and exercise physiologist who focuses on investigating healthy lifestyle interventions for decreasing cardiovascular disease risk. He also works translationally to move his research out of the clinical research setting and into the public health domain for broad dissemination and implementation. Most recently, Dr. Craighead has been investigating on high-resistance inspiration muscle strength training as a time-efficient, low-burden respiratory exercise for lowering blood pressure in healthy adults and patient populations. His work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Connect with him on X.

Dr. Craighead thinks one of the most critical skills of an author is to be able to construct a clear and consistent narrative. This means presenting one’s introduction, methods, results, and discussion with a consistent theme and structure that tie all the sections of the manuscript together. It also means using unambiguous language that can only be interpreted as the author intends. When authors can do this, they can effectively communicate their research to broad audiences.

In Dr. Craighead’s opinion, it can be very difficult to avoid bias. To him, one of the best approaches to avoiding bias is to work with collaborators who will critically appraise his work. After he writes the first draft of a manuscript, he sends it to his co-authors and asks for detailed feedback. Often the co-authors are able to identify when bias is creeping in, and he can make appropriate changes prior to submitting the manuscript to a journal for review.

“Writing takes a lot of time and effort, but it is exciting to finally share the results from the long and challenging research process. I find motivation in sharing the results of my work. It is very fulfilling to see months to years of effort come together in an excellent manuscript. I’m particularly motivated when working on manuscripts with graduate students; I enjoy seeing the excitement that young investigators have when they finally get a manuscript accepted for publication,” says Dr. Craighead.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Kim Daniels

Kim Daniels is the Head of Research at the Centre of Innovation in Care at PXL University of Applied Sciences and Arts in Hasselt, Belgium. Her work revolves around integrating technology into healthcare, to enhance accessibility, effectiveness, and patient-centered care. She is passionate about translating research into practice. With a background in rehabilitation sciences, her research spans mHealth, digital phenotyping, and behavior change interventions with a strong focus on physical activity. She led the development of the MIA app, an mHealth app designed to encourage older adults to stay active through personalized interventions. Recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach to physical activity does not work, her team worked on co-creating the app with older adults, ensuring that their needs, and barriers to exercise were addressed. She is driven by the challenge of bridging the gap between innovation and real-world implementation, ensuring that technology truly benefits those who need it most. Connect with Dr. Daniels on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Daniels: First of all, I love academic writing because it allows me to translate research into meaningful insights that can drive change. It opens doors, starts conversations, and even fosters collaborations. However, the process comes with its own set of challenges. For me, one of the biggest difficulties is maintaining clarity while ensuring depth. Academic writing requires balancing comprehensive explanations with conciseness, especially when presenting complex concepts or integrating interdisciplinary perspectives. Achieving this balance often means refining sections multiple times to create a logical and coherent flow. Being a non-native English speaker adds another layer of complexity. Ensuring proper grammar, maintaining an academic tone, and using discipline-specific terminology correctly require extra effort and careful attention to detail. Finally, adhering to journal guidelines and meeting reviewer expectations can be particularly demanding. Each journal has its own formatting and methodological requirements, and addressing reviewer feedback often involves significant revisions. This process challenges me to rethink how I present my findings, ensuring that they are as clear and impactful as possible.

mHealth: Academic writing often involves evidence synthesis. Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?

Dr. Daniels: I approach evidence synthesis with a clear research question as my starting point. Defining the scope and objectives helps me determine what type of evidence I need, whether it’s empirical studies, theoretical frameworks, or policy papers. Here are my practical tips for other authors:

• Cast a wide net, but stay focused: I use multiple databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to ensure a broad search but set clear inclusion and exclusion criteria from the start to avoid getting lost in too much information.
• Go beyond abstracts: a title or abstract might seem relevant, but I always dig into the full text to assess the methodology, limitations, and actual findings before deciding if a study belongs in my synthesis.
• Organize your read papers: I rely on Endnote to keep track of sources, categorize studies, and avoid spending hours searching for that ‘one paper I saw last week’.
• Quality over quantity: more studies does not always mean better synthesis. I prioritize well-conducted research (e.g., systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or robust experimental designs) rather than just accumulating a long list of references.
• Look for patterns, not just results: instead of simply summarizing findings (although that goes very quick nowadays with all AI tools available), I focus on identifying trends, contradictions, and knowledge gaps that move the field forward. This also gives me inspiration for new research projects.
• Be aware of bias (especially including my own): every study has some level of bias, and I make a conscious effort to critically evaluate both the research that I’m including as well as my own assumptions.

For me, the key to strong evidence synthesis is staying structured and focused. It’s easy to get lost in the sea of articles, so having a clear plan helps navigate the overwhelming amount of information.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Amanda Love

Ms. Amanda Love is a Lecturer and Practice Education Coordinator at Griffith University, Australia, in the School of Health Sciences and Social Work. She is a graduate of The University of Queensland in Australia, holding a Bachelor of Speech Pathology (Honors) and recently submitted her Doctor of Philosophy through Griffith University in January 2025. She is a Certified Practicing Speech Pathologist (CPSP) with expertise in acquired cognitive communication disorders after stroke, dysphagia, and practice education. Her most recent project led to the development of a screening tool app to identify cognitive communication disorder after right hemisphere stroke, addressing a significant gap in best practice stroke management. Connect with Ms. Love on LinkedIn.

From Ms. Love’s perspective, a good academic paper should tell a story by presenting a clear research question that is significant and meaningful while also highlighting a gap in existing research. A robust methodology ensures the credibility of its findings. Like a well-told story, a good paper should flow naturally, build on previous sections, and lead to a conclusion that not only answers the initial question, but also opens avenues for future research. It is highly important to consider accessibility; a good paper should ensure that complex ideas are communicated clearly.

Speaking of the challenges in academic writing, Ms. Love reckons that the first challenge lies in maintaining readability by ensuring what one writes is clear, concise, and not unnecessarily complex. Related to this are the challenges of maintaining a logical and coherent structure. The argument should be consistent, well-supported, and free from repetition throughout the paper. A third challenge, to her, is managing data and evidence. Both qualitative and quantitative data should be presented clearly and meaningfully, with careful consideration given to the integration of graphs, tables, and figures within the paper.  

“Academic writing is not just about presenting the facts—it requires us to build a compelling and impactful argument using language that is clear and concise. Academic writing allows us to contribute to scholarly discussions, share new ideas or innovations with a broad audience, and challenge existing knowledge,” says Ms. Love.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Evans Abotsi

Evans Abotsi is a public health professional with over ten years work experience with the Ghana Health Service and several USAID-funded projects. He holds a master’s degree in public health from the School of Public Service and Governance of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration, Bachelor of Science degree in Health Service Administration from the University of Ghana Business School and a diploma in public health information. He, until very recently, worked with JSI Research & Training Institute, Inc. (JSI) on the USAID Country Health Information Systems and Data Use (CHISU) Program in Ghana as the ICT Specialist, during which he worked closely with the Ghana Health Service to strengthen health information systems, focusing on data quality and use. He provided technical support in advancing the use of geospatial data and technologies including geographical information systems (GIS) to improve access and quality of healthcare services including immunization. Connect with Evans on LinkedIn.

In Evans’ opinion, a good academic paper should have the ultimate objective of contributing to knowledge in a particular field of study in a manner that generates the interest of its readers. The paper must state a clear objective and purpose. A cohesive structure, with well-organized flow of ideas that are communicated in a concise but intelligible narrative, facilitates a quick grasp of the key points. The structural components of a good paper include a brief introduction that establishes the research question or objective, a focused literature review that demonstrates knowledge and understanding of what other authors have contributed to the field of study, a description of study methods adopted, and a discussion of the study results. Even if the results are not statistically significant, the paper should highlight its contributions, whether methodological, theoretical, or practical. A well-written conclusion should summarize key insights and suggest future research directions. Proper citations further strengthen the paper’s credibility and situate it within the existing body of knowledge.

From Evans’ perspective, following reporting guidelines such as STROBE (for observational studies), PRISMA (for systematic reviews and meta-analyses), and CARE (for case reports) is crucial during manuscript preparation, as they enhance the quality and integrity of scientific research. These guidelines provide a structured framework that ensures consistency, clarity and transparency, allowing readers, reviewers, and editors to easily understand the study's methodology, results, and implications. They also improve reproducibility by ensuring that sufficient methodological details are provided, enabling other researchers to replicate the study. Adherence to reporting standards increases the credibility and trustworthiness of the research, strengthening the author's reputation within the scientific community. Additionally, following these guidelines facilitates the peer-review process by making it easier for reviewers to assess the validity and quality of the research, which can reduce delays and the likelihood of rejection. Many journals require compliance with specific reporting guidelines, so adhering to them increases the chances of acceptance and minimizes unnecessary revisions. Beyond practical benefits, guidelines like CARE promote ethical research practices by emphasizing key considerations such as patient consent, data integrity, and conflict of interest disclosures, ensuring that the study meets ethical standards.

“To all the dedicated academic writers tirelessly advancing scientific progress, our work is the foundation of innovation and discovery. Every paper we write and every finding we share contributes to the collective knowledge that shapes our world. The journey may be demanding, with revisions, rejections, and long hours, but our efforts have the power to inspire, inform, and drive meaningful change. Let’s continue to be curious, resilient, and passionate, because our commitment to excellence and the sharing of knowledge are what drive science forward,” says Evans.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Melissa J. Vilaro

Melissa Vilaro is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Youth and Community Sciences and an Extension Health and Wellness State Specialist at the University of Florida. Her research includes developing culturally tailored behavior change interventions for chronic disease prevention with a focus on the cancer continuum. Her expertise in public health, social and behavioral sciences, community nutrition, and health communication informs her approach to culturally tailored, behavior change strategies among multicultural populations. Dr. Vilaro has served as PI, co-investigator, and trainee on USDA, CTSI- and NIH-funded projects, and is an active member of the UF Health Cancer Center, Cancer Control, and Population Sciences program. She is also a member of the NHLBI-funded programs to increase diversity among individuals engaged in health-related research (PRIDE-CVD) Cohort 10 completing summer institutes in cardiovascular health-related research between 2022 and 2024. Ongoing projects include interventions addressing modifiable individual, interpersonal, and community-level risk factors. Follow Dr. Vilaro on LinkedIn and her homepage.

Dr. Vilaro considers time management to be one of the most important skills for any authors. Consistency and motivation to keep coming back to the page is also important.

To avoid biases in one’s writing, she believes that writing with trusted co-authors and sharing early drafts and concepts with colleagues can help with receiving feedback throughout the writing process. She adds, “As a qualitative and mixed methods scholar, being reflexive and transparent about your relationship to the work can also be helpful to make any biases that you may have transparent to the readers and help you reflect as an author how they may or may not be shaping your interpretation of the literature and your writing.”

Speaking of what motivates Dr. Vilaro to constantly write, she says, “I’m passionate about exploring the lived experiences of people managing the health challenges they encounter and working collaboratively with communities and researchers to identify and apply solutions.”

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)