Purpose: Surgical resection of remnant gastric cancer (RGC) is technically challenging and difficult. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been adopted for various procedures, but reports of MIS for RGC remain limited. Herein, we report the surgical techniques and short-term outcomes of MIS for RGC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 61 consecutive RGC patients who underwent open or minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) total gastrectomy for potentially curable RGC at our institution (January 1999–August 2025). A propensity scorematched cohort was used for an exploratory evaluation of the safety and efficacy of MIS for RGC, focusing on feasibility rather than superiority over open surgery. Results: Of these 61 patients, 53 underwent open surgery and eight underwent MIS gastrectomy for RGC. The median age was 70 years. The cohort comprised 53 men and eight women. The initial procedure was open surgery in 58 patients and MIS in three patients.Propensity score matching showed significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss in the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (39 mL vs. 576 mL, p < 0.05), and significantly longer operation time in the MIS group (352 minutes vs. 297 minutes, p < 0.05). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (12 days vs. 17 days, p < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula was lower in the MIS group, although not significantly different (0% vs. 16.7%). Conclusion MIS, including robotic gastrectomy, is feasible and safe for RGC, with potential perioperative benefits requiring multicenter validation.

Comprehensive knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research systematizes scholarly research and enhances the quality of research output. Scientific researchers must be familiar with them and skilled to conduct their investigation within the frames of their chosen research type. When conducting quantitative research, scientific researchers should describe an existing theory, generate a hypothesis from the theory, test their hypothesis in novel research, and re-evaluate the theory. Thereafter, they should take a deductive approach in writing the testing of the established theory based on experiments. When conducting qualitative research, scientific researchers raise a question, answer the question by performing a novel study, and propose a new theory to clarify and interpret the obtained results. After which, they should take an inductive approach to writing the formulation of concepts based on collected data. When scientific researchers combine the whole spectrum of inductive and deductive research approaches using both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, they apply mixed-method research. Familiarity and proficiency with these research aspects facilitate the construction of novel hypotheses, development of theories, or refinement of concepts.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

Numerous guidelines on how to write a scientific article have been published. Many books and articles giving detailed instructions on how to develop a research question, perform a literature search, or design a study protocol are widely available. However, there are few guidelines on how to create logical flow when writing a scientific article. Logical flow is the key to achieving a smooth and orderly progression of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content towards a convincing conclusion. This article provides guidelines for creating logical flow when writing the text and main sections of a scientific article. The first step is creating a draft outline of the whole article. Once completed, the draft outline is developed into a single, coherent article that logically explains the study. Logical flow in the text is created by using precise and concise words, composing clear sentences, and connecting well-structured paragraphs.The use of transitions connects sentences and paragraphs, ensuring clarity and coherence when presenting academic arguments and conclusions. Logical flow in the main sections of a scientific article is achieved by presenting the whole story of the article sequentially in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, focusing attention on the most important points in each section, and connecting all of these to the main purpose of the study.

Numerous guidelines on how to write a scientific article have been published. Many books and articles giving detailed instructions on how to develop a research question, perform a literature search, or design a study protocol are widely available. However, there are few guidelines on how to create logical flow when writing a scientific article. Logical flow is the key to achieving a smooth and orderly progression of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content towards a convincing conclusion. This article provides guidelines for creating logical flow when writing the text and main sections of a scientific article. The first step is creating a draft outline of the whole article. Once completed, the draft outline is developed into a single, coherent article that logically explains the study. Logical flow in the text is created by using precise and concise words, composing clear sentences, and connecting well-structured paragraphs.The use of transitions connects sentences and paragraphs, ensuring clarity and coherence when presenting academic arguments and conclusions. Logical flow in the main sections of a scientific article is achieved by presenting the whole story of the article sequentially in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, focusing attention on the most important points in each section, and connecting all of these to the main purpose of the study.

Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.

The era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to fundamental shifts in research, ethics, and peer review including reframing of the research design, adapting methodologies to the study type, transitioning of research mechanics, changing research methodologies, overcoming data collection and standardization constraints, upholding research standards and ethics, maintaining informativeness and social value, and providing guarded peer review flexibility. Indeed, the COVID-19 crisis, despite disrupting research worldwide to an unprecedented degree, has also become a catalyst to develop strategies of adaptation to this disruption. As the COVID-19 pandemic continuous to evolve, new, cost-effective, and highly flexible research models need to be developed. Planning is crucial for ensuring short-term and long-term contingency funds to support research logistics and personnel. A mental shift must accompany changes in methodologies to mentor and support researchers who are vital to the continuity of high-caliber research in the long term. A global research perspective through interinstitutional and interprofessional collaboration will sustain adherence to the highest standards of data collection and research reporting.

Scholarly article writing and publishing in international peer-reviewed journals can become an overwhelming task for many medical, nursing, and healthcare professionals in a university setting, especially in countries whose native language is not English. To help improve their scientific writing skills and publishing capacity, a university-based editing system and writing programs can be developed as educational platforms. These are delivered by a team of specialist editors composed of tenured faculty members who have a strong medical background and extensive experience in teaching courses on medical research, editing, writing, and publishing. For the editing system, the specialist editors provide comprehensive editing, personalized consultation, full editorial support after peer review, guidance with online submissions/resubmissions, and detailed editorial review at different stages of the manuscript writing. In addition, the specialist editors can develop writing programs such as medical writing and editing internships, academic courses in medical writing or research study designs and reporting standards, special interactive lectures and sessions on predatory publishing, seminars on updated editorial guidance of global editorial associations, academic visits on medical writing and editing, medical writing mentoring program, networking programs in scholarly communication, and publication resources in medical writing and scholarly publishing. These editing system and writing programs can serve as integrated platforms for improving scientific writing skills and publishing capacity by providing continuing education in medical writing, editing, publishing, and publication ethics.
Delivery of Health Care ; Education, Continuing ; Ethics ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Lectures ; Medical Writing ; Mentors ; Nursing ; Peer Review ; Publications ; Specialization ; Writing*

There are currently very limited reports on the strengths and weaknesses of Japanese medical students in processing (i.e., searching, reading, synthesizing, writing, editing, refining) and presenting medical content based on scholarly journal articles. We developed and offered a 3-week group independent research course in English as a summer elective named “Improving Medical English Skills and Creating English Medical Content (PPT and video) Based on Medical Journal Articles” to our fourth-year Japanese medical students who follow a 6-year medical curriculum as the target audience. Herein, we describe the specific strengths and weaknesses of 6 students who chose and completed the course. Thereafter, we assessed the possible reasons underlying these weaknesses, pondered on the potential implications of such weaknesses on the critical thinking, logical reasoning, and communication skills of Japanese medical students, and suggested approaches to further enhance these skills. The assessments, implications, and suggestions given may provide medical educators new insights on how to newly organize educational and clinical programs to address such weaknesses, improve searching, reading, writing, editing, and presentation skills, enhance critical thinking and logical reasoning abilities, and gain in-depth knowledge essential for effectively appraising and communicating medical content.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Curriculum ; Humans ; Logic ; Students, Medical* ; Thinking* ; Writing*