Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Wound Research and Technology undergo an initial editorial screening followed by external peer review. The journal operates a double-anonymized peer review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is assessed by the editorial office and the handling editor to determine whether it fits the journal’s aims and scope and complies with the journal’s author guidelines, ethical standards, and minimum language quality requirements. At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are outside the journal’s scope, show insufficient scientific quality, fail to comply with submission requirements, or contain major ethical or reporting concerns. Manuscripts may also be returned to authors for technical, structural, or language revisions before peer review. The journal aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 1–2 weeks, although this timeframe may vary depending on editorial workload and manuscript complexity.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic competence, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest related to the manuscript under consideration. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, clarity of presentation, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope. The journal aims for reviewers to complete each review round within three weeks, although timelines may vary.

Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, together with the handling editor’s and Editor-in-Chief’s assessment of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final decision to accept, reject, or request revision of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor acting on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief. Where reviewer reports are substantially conflicting, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make an editorial judgment based on the strength and substance of the reports received.

Revisions

Authors receiving a decision of minor revision or major revision are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed further by the editors, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Article Types

Research articles, review articles, case reports, and other scholarly content published in the journal are subject to peer review. Editorials, corrigenda, announcements, and other non-research content may be evaluated solely by the editors and will be clearly identified as such where applicable. Special issue submissions, if any, are subject to the same editorial oversight and external peer review standards as regular submissions.

Research Integrity and Ethical Review Standards

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, editorial independence, and research integrity. Editors and reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts fairly, objectively, and confidentially. Where appropriate, submitted manuscripts may also be screened for plagiarism, redundant publication, or other forms of publication misconduct as part of the editorial assessment process.

This policy is developed in line with international standards and good editorial practice, including the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, the DOAJ Guide to Applying, and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers of the Journal of Wound Research and Technology play a vital role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and relevance of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, timely, and evidence-based assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents and must not share, discuss, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity and should decline the review invitation when an impartial review cannot be guaranteed.
Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should be objective, respectful, and constructive, and should focus on the academic quality of the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of the authors.
Scholarly Assessment: Reviewers are expected to evaluate originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical soundness, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Timeliness: Reviewers should submit their reports within the requested review period and promptly inform the editorial office if they are unable to complete the review on time.
Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research conduct, inappropriate authorship, or any other significant ethical concern.
Citation Ethics: Reviewers should not recommend the addition of citations to their own work, or that of colleagues, unless such citations are genuinely necessary for the scholarly quality and completeness of the manuscript.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers are generally asked to recommend one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. These recommendations are advisory only, and the final decision remains with the journal’s editors.

Reviewer Ethics Reference

Reviewers are encouraged to follow internationally recognized ethical standards, particularly those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE Guidance on Developing Reviewer Guidelines.