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

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)