In 2026, many AOB 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)
Tomohiko Sato, The Jikei University Hospital, Japan
Outstanding Author
Tomohiko Sato
Tomohiko Sato, MD, PhD, is a Director and Associate Professor of the Division of Transfusion Medicine and Cell Therapy at The Jikei University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. He specializes in transfusion medicine and blood safety, with particular interests in health policy implementation and the organization of blood systems. He serves as a member of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Global Blood Safety Working Party. In Japan, he has been involved in guideline development and the promotion of patient blood management through his professional society. His recent work has focused on how blood systems can be strengthened through evidence-informed policy and knowledge sharing. In Japan, the long-standing division of roles between the blood service and hospitals has supported a reliable system for the provision and use of safe blood. He believes closer collaboration between these sectors will be increasingly important for advancing patient safety and best practice in transfusion medicine.
In Dr. Sato’s view, academic writing plays a fundamental role in science because it transforms individual observations into knowledge that can be shared, examined, and built upon by others. For him, writing is not only a way to report findings, but also a way to clarify thoughts. In that sense, he strongly believes in “write to think.” In medicine, academic writing also has a practical role: it helps connect evidence with clinical practice and policy. He believes that peer-reviewed publications are important not only for sharing knowledge but also for providing externally validated evidence that can aid in discussion, consensus-building, and implementation. Even relatively short forms of writing, such as Correspondence, can sharpen debate and sometimes influence how research is interpreted in practice.
To keep his writing current, Dr. Sato strives to remain closely connected to both the latest literature and the realities of clinical practice. He regularly reviews newly published studies, but he believes that merely reading papers is insufficient. He tries to “dissect” them critically—looking at methodology, generalizability, hidden assumptions, and what may have been left unanswered. Many useful ideas come not from accepting a paper at face value, but from asking where the real clinical questions still remain. He also pays close attention to implementation, because evidence alone does not change practice unless it fits the structure of the healthcare system. In this way, he tries to write not only about what is new, but also about what is actionable and worth discussing further.
“What motivates me most is the belief that academic writing can contribute to real improvement in healthcare. In transfusion medicine, even a short paper can raise an important question, refine the interpretation of published evidence, or help move practice in a safer direction. I also find writing valuable because it begins with the small but genuine uncertainties we encounter in daily clinical practice. Those unresolved questions are often the starting point of meaningful academic discussion. In that sense, writing is not separate from practice; it is one way of engaging with practice more deeply. I am also motivated by the possibility that peer-reviewed work can provide a credible basis for change, especially in settings where implementation requires broad professional agreement. That practical impact is what continues to inspire me,” says Dr. Sato.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)
Maik Klasen
Maik Klasen, PhD, is a senior leader within Acumetis and was one of the founding Managing Directors of Adivo Associates. He began his career as an immunologist and geneticist at UCSF before moving into the biotechnology start-up sector, where he worked with four California-based companies that were later divested. He continues to serve on the board of directors of one of the divested biopharmaceutical companies, combining scientific, entrepreneurial, and strategic advisory perspectives. Before founding Adivo, he led Frost & Sullivan’s Global Healthcare and Life Science Consulting Practice, managing global engagements with leading pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, IVD/MDx, and healthcare IT companies. His recent work focuses on using clinical, real-world market data to support commercial strategy, regulatory decision-making, market access, health economics, and reimbursement across complex healthcare markets.
AOB: What are the essential elements of a good academic paper?
Dr. Klasen: An effective academic paper should do more than simply present findings; it should aid the field in understanding complex issues. In healthcare and life sciences, this often involves linking scientific evidence to real-world decisions, such as designing studies, assessing unmet needs, proving value, and planning for adoption. The best papers are rigorous, but they’re also deliberate. They define the problem clearly, explain why the evidence matters now, and make the assumptions behind the analysis visible. This is especially important in areas where clinical, economic, and market realities intersect, because the same evidence may be read differently by researchers, clinicians, payers, and policymakers. I also think a good paper should be honest about uncertainty. The value often lies in showing what is known, what remains unresolved, and what questions the field should ask next. In our recent paper on plasma collection demand, the aim was to connect scientific and market evidence in a way that could support better planning around plasma-derived products, especially as demand, competition, and clinical use continue to evolve. The article notes that immunoglobulins remain the major driver of plasma demand, while new MOAs such as anti-FcRn therapies are changing the competitive landscape in some autoimmune indications.
AOB: What should authors bear in mind during the preparation of a paper?
Dr. Klasen: Authors should start by asking what decision their paper is helping the reader make. In applied healthcare research, a paper is rarely read in isolation. It may shape how evidence is generated, how value is understood, how a therapy is positioned, or where further work is needed. That means authors need to be precise about context, and in applied healthcare research, that includes being precise about the nature of the evidence itself. Clinical trial data is rigorous by design, but real-world datasets (patient chart data, EHR records, claims, or prescription data) are often harder to obtain, limited in scope, and considerably messier. Yet products must ultimately perform in the real world. That tension is worth engaging with from the start of the R&D process: mapping the pathway from pre-clinical mechanism of action through to real-world utilisation across heterogeneous patient populations helps establish a more complete picture of a product’s prospects, supports earlier subject matter expert engagement, and grounds use-case assessments in clinical reality. A paper that is honest about which evidence it is drawing on, and what that means for interpretation, becomes far more useful to the people who need to act on it. I would also encourage authors to think about translation from the beginning. Academic writing shouldn’t be promotional, but it should be usable. The strongest papers give readers enough clarity to carry the evidence into the next conversation, whether that’s a research discussion, regulatory review, market access assessment, or clinical planning process.
AOB: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other academic writers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress?
Dr. Klasen: I would encourage authors to explore unconventional data sources. New data environments, particularly in real-world evidence, are opening up discoveries that more conventional approaches would not surface. The discipline is in being rigorous about explaining those sources: what they capture, what they miss, and what that means for interpretation. When authors do that well, it pushes the field forward, because the discussions that follow become more comprehensive and more evidence-driven. Academic writing can be demanding, but it is one of the most important ways we turn evidence into progress. A well-written paper can help others ask better questions, design better studies, and make better decisions. My advice is to stay close to the question that matters. Scientific progress often comes from patient, careful work: assembling evidence, testing assumptions, and being honest about what the data can and cannot show. I would also encourage authors to keep writing even when the process feels slow. If your work helps clarify a complex issue for others, it has value.
(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)