In 2026, many JOMA 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)

André Luiz Ferreira Costa, Cruzeiro do Sul University (UNICSUL), Brazil

Cameron C. Lee, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, USA

Vivek Aggarwal, Jamia Millia Islamia, India

Toru Yamamoto, Niigata University, Japan

Giustino Varrassi, Fondazione Paolo Procacci, Italy

Outstanding Author

André Luiz Ferreira Costa

Dr. André Luiz Ferreira Costa is a Professor of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology at Cruzeiro do Sul University (UNICSUL) and serves in the Post Graduate Programs in Dentistry at UNICSUL and Oncology at UNICAMP, Brazil. He is also the Director of the Oral Radiology Department at FAOA/APCD. He completed his DDS at the University of São Paulo, followed by a specialization and MSc in Oral Radiology and a PhD in Medical Pathophysiology at UNICAMP, with postdoctoral training in diagnostic imaging, including an international fellowship at the University of Ottawa, Canada. His clinical and research interests focus on dentomaxillofacial imaging, particularly radiomics, artificial intelligence, and quantitative imaging applied to head and neck oncology and temporomandibular joint disorders. He has authored over 170 scientific publications and actively contributes as a reviewer for numerous international journals, while also engaging in academic training and scientific dissemination in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Follow him on Instagram.

In Dr. Costa’s view, an author should be curious, rigorous, and ethically committed. Curiosity helps generate relevant clinical questions, while rigor ensures reliable and reproducible results. Integrity is essential throughout the entire research process. Clear communication and openness to peer review are also key to advancing science.

Dr. Costa also emphasizes the importance of adhering to reporting guidelines during manuscript preparation. He believes these guidelines enhance clarity, transparency, and methodological rigor, making the study easier to understand, reproduce, and critically evaluate. Ultimately, this strengthens the quality and credibility of the research.

Despite a demanding schedule, Dr. Costa treats academic writing as an integral part of his routine rather than an additional burden. He integrates writing directly with his ongoing research and clinical questions, dedicating small but consistent blocks of time to it. Collaboration with students and colleagues further helps him maintain both productivity and momentum.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Cameron C. Lee

Dr. Cameron C. Lee is a board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon who serves as Assistant Professor and Associate Program Director in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry, USA. He earned his DMD from Harvard School of Dental Medicine and his MD from Harvard Medical School, completed oral and maxillofacial surgery residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, and subsequently pursued fellowship training at the University of Maryland Medical Center. His clinical practice focuses on head and neck pathology, microvascular reconstruction, and maxillofacial trauma. His research centers on health services in oral and maxillofacial surgery, with particular interest in trauma triage, interfacility transfer patterns, and the economic burden of maxillofacial care in the United States.

A good academic paper, according to Dr. Lee, asks an important question, answers it clearly, and does so with methodological rigor. A strong paper should add something genuinely useful to the field, whether that is new knowledge or evidence that can improve patient care.

In Dr. Lee’s opinion, one of the most common difficulties in academic writing is translating a complex idea into clear and concise language. Many authors know their subject matter well, but struggle to present it in a focused way without either being too broad or too technical. Another common challenge is maintaining consistency between the study question, methods, results, and discussion so that the paper tells a coherent story.

“What I find most fascinating about academic writing is its ability to transform individual observations into a contribution with global impact. It is a way of taking clinical experience, data, or a new idea, and shaping it into something that can impact patient care far beyond the walls of one’s own clinic. It is especially rewarding when colleagues share that your work has been cited in a conference presentation or used to support clinical decision making elsewhere,” says Dr. Lee.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Vivek Aggarwal

Dr. Vivek Aggarwal is a Professor in the Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. He completed his Master of Dental Surgery from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and holds a DHA Specialist Certification in Endodontics. With over 100 peer-reviewed publications, he is a globally recognised researcher in dental anaesthesia, endodontics, and adhesive dentistry. His current research focuses on improving the anaesthetic success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and the development of novel dental biomaterials, including silver nanoparticle-incorporated adhesives and bioactive endodontic sealers. He has been awarded research grants from DST and SERB (Government of India) and holds over 70 patents filed across India, the United Kingdom, and internationally. He serves on the editorial and review boards of more than 40 international peer-reviewed journals.

JOMA: How do you ensure the writing is critical?

Dr. Aggarwal: Critical writing, to me, begins well before the first sentence is written. It starts with a genuine question, one that challenges existing assumptions or addresses a gap. I try to make a deliberate effort to distinguish between what the evidence actually shows and what we might simply hope or assume to be true. This means studying the prior literature not merely to cite it, but to evaluate it: examining sample sizes, methodological rigour, potential biases, and the clinical relevance of reported outcomes. I also believe that honest reporting of limitations is not a weakness but a necessity. A paper that acknowledges what it cannot conclude is far more valuable than one that overstates its findings.

JOMA: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Aggarwal: COI disclosure is foundational to the trust that underpins evidence-based practice. Readers, clinicians, and patients rely on published research to make decisions, and that reliance is only justified if the conditions under which the research was conducted are transparent. A COI does not automatically invalidate a study, but it is information that every reader deserves to weigh for themselves. The extent to which a COI influences research is well-documented in the literature. Industry-funded studies, for example, are statistically more likely to report favourable outcomes for the sponsor's product, even when methodological quality appears comparable. This is precisely why structural safeguards such as pre-registration, independent data monitoring, and mandatory disclosure are essential, not optional.

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

Dr. Aggarwal: The primary motivation is straightforward: the problems I work on genuinely matter. Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis is one of the most frustrating clinical challenges a dentist and patient can face. Every trial I design and publish moves us closer to reducing that suffering.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Toru Yamamoto

Dr. Toru Yamamoto is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Dental Anesthesiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Niigata University, Japan. He received his PhD in Dentistry from Kyushu Dental University, Japan, and completed postdoctoral training at the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, UCLA School of Dentistry, USA. His academic interests bridge dental anesthesiology, perioperative management, pain medicine, and neuroscience, with a particular focus on trigeminal mechanisms underlying orofacial pain. His recent work includes studies on trigeminal nerve injury, microglial hyperreactivity, HCN channels, and clinical topics including pain management, dental sedation, general anesthesia, and perioperative safety. He also serves as an editorial board member of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia and contributes to academic and committee activities of the Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Yamamoto regards a good academic paper as one that begins with a clinically meaningful or scientifically important question, addresses it with appropriate methodology, and presents conclusions that are proportional to the evidence. In dental anesthesiology, he especially values papers that contribute to patient safety, improve perioperative decision-making, or clarify mechanisms behind clinical problems. A good paper does not necessarily need to provide a complete answer to every question. Rather, it should clearly define what is known, what remains uncertain, and how the findings may guide future research or clinical practice. Transparency about limitations is also essential, because overstatement can mislead readers. Ultimately, a good academic paper helps colleagues think more clearly, treat patients more safely, or design a better follow-up study.

One of the most common difficulties, according to Dr. Yamamoto, is transforming a broad clinical concern into a focused and answerable research question. In anesthesia and perioperative management, many clinical events are multifactorial, and it is not always easy to separate the main message from the surrounding complexity. Another difficulty is maintaining consistency among the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, so that the manuscript tells a coherent story. For non-native English-speaking authors, expressing nuanced clinical and scientific ideas in concise English can also be challenging. He believes that careful reading of prior literature, honest discussion among co-authors, and repeated revision are essential. Academic writing is not only a process of reporting results, but also a process of refining one’s own thinking.

“What fascinates me most about academic writing is that it can transform individual clinical experience or experimental findings into shared knowledge. In dental anesthesiology, many important questions arise at the interface of dentistry, medicine, anesthesia, and neuroscience. Academic writing allows us to connect these fields and communicate observations that may otherwise remain within a single department or institution. I also find it rewarding that a manuscript can continue to have an impact after publication: it may stimulate discussion, support clinical decision-making, or inspire another researcher to ask a new question. For me, academic writing is a way to contribute to patient safety and scientific progress beyond my own daily clinical and research environment,” says Dr. Yamamoto.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Giustino Varrassi

Prof. Giustino Varrassi graduated cum laude in Medicine from Sapienza University of Rome in 1973 and pursued an academic career in anesthesiology before joining the University of L’Aquila, where he became Chair of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine in 1985, establishing its academic and residency programs. He is currently President of the Fondazione Paolo Procacci, an international non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in Pain Medicine. He has authored several hundred scientific papers and book chapters, edited numerous books, and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Pain and Therapy and of Advancements in Health Research. He is the past President of both the European Pain Federation (EFIC) and the World Institute of Pain (WIP). He has organized major international congresses and currently leads the Roma Pain Days. His research focuses on Pain Medicine, inflammatory pain, and the societal impact of pain, with an H-index of 46 (Scopus) and 41 (Web of Science). Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Critical writing begins with intellectual humility. For Prof. Varrassi, the purpose of scientific writing is not to confirm preconceptions but to challenge them. Every conclusion should stem from the strength of the evidence rather than personal conviction. He approaches critical writing by asking four key questions: What do we really know? What remains uncertain? Could there be another interpretation? And how can science advance from here? A strong discussion acknowledges both strengths and limitations of the evidence, compares conflicting findings, and avoids overstating conclusions. He also emphasizes the importance of broad literature knowledge. Relying only on supportive papers introduces bias, whereas engaging with contradictory findings strengthens reasoning. Ultimately, good critical writing demands strategy, clarity, transparency, and the courage to highlight knowledge gaps. In his experience, the most valuable papers are not those claiming definitive answers, but those that ask the right questions and guide future research.

What motivates Prof. Varrassi to write is his deep love and passion for science and knowledge. He views academic writing not as a professional obligation, but as an intellectual privilege that allows him to organize ideas, critically examine evidence, and contribute something of lasting value to the scientific community. Writing well demands significant time, discipline, patience, and perseverance. While external incentives such as titles and promotions may motivate early in one’s career, they are insufficient for sustained scholarly work. At this stage, he continues writing with growing enthusiasm because his drive comes from within—the joy of transforming ideas into meaningful contributions, clarifying complex concepts, and opening new research directions. Another key motivation is his commitment to the younger generation. He believes senior academics have a responsibility to transmit enthusiasm for discovery. If his publications and mentorship can inspire young researchers to embrace curiosity, rigor, and integrity, then his efforts have achieved their highest purpose. For him, scientific writing is ultimately an act of service—to communicate knowledge and encourage others to ask better questions and advance the field. This enduring passion for science and for future generations remains his greatest motivation.

Prof. Varrassi regards disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) as a fundamental pillar of scientific integrity. A COI does not necessarily invalidate a study or imply misconduct; many advances stem from academia-industry collaborations. Transparency, however, enables editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate findings with full awareness of any potential influences. For him, the issue is not the existence of a conflict but whether it is openly disclosed and properly managed. Undisclosed COIs can undermine credibility and erode public trust, whereas complete transparency strengthens confidence in science. Ultimately, a study’s quality should be judged by its methodology, data robustness, and reproducibility—not by its funding source. Disclosure ensures findings are interpreted in the proper context, preserving the trust on which science depends.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)