Guidelines for Reviewers

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Journal of Wound Research and Technology

Reviewers of the Journal of Wound Research and Technology are expected to evaluate each manuscript objectively, fairly, confidentially, and constructively. Reviews should support editorial decision-making and help authors improve the scientific quality, clarity, relevance, and impact of their work. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to wound promotion, wound prevention, wound treatment, associated skin conditions, and related interdisciplinary fields that support improved patient care.

1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate the originality, novelty, and scientific contribution of the manuscript. The manuscript should present new findings, new perspectives, innovative methods, or meaningful confirmation of important evidence in wound research and technology.

Please consider the following questions:

  • Does the manuscript add valuable knowledge to wound care, wound healing, or associated skin conditions?
  • Does it provide clinically, scientifically, or technologically important insight?
  • Is the work sufficiently original and not merely repetitive of existing literature?

Any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, image manipulation, or other forms of publication misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editor.

2. Relevance to Journal Scope

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the Journal of Wound Research and Technology. The journal welcomes manuscripts covering all aspects of the promotion, prevention, and treatment of wounds and associated skin conditions to improve patient care.

Relevant topics may include wounds, but are not limited to:

  • surgery,
  • endocrinology,
  • dermatology,
  • vascular care,
  • oncology,
  • nursing,
  • wound-related technology,
  • radiotherapy,
  • physical therapy,
  • occupational therapy,
  • modality therapy,
  • podiatry,
  • and other interdisciplinary areas related to wound management.

Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript has relevance for the journal’s multidisciplinary readership, including physicians, surgeons, nurses, midwives, podiatrists, physical therapists, radiotherapists, oncologists, and occupational therapists.

Manuscripts that fall clearly outside the journal’s scope should be recommended for rejection.

3. Methodological and Statistical Quality

Reviewers should assess whether the study design, methods, sample selection, instruments, interventions, and analyses are appropriate and sufficiently rigorous to answer the research question.

Please evaluate:

  • clarity of the study objective or hypothesis;
  • appropriateness of the study design;
  • adequacy of sample size and participant selection;
  • validity and reliability of instruments or measurements;
  • appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analysis;
  • consistency between findings and conclusions;
  • reproducibility and transparency of the methods.

If specialized methodological or statistical concerns are identified, reviewers should explain them clearly in their comments.

4. Ethical Standards and Research Integrity

Reviewers should assess whether the study appears to meet appropriate ethical and scientific integrity standards. Where relevant, manuscripts should clearly report:

  • ethics committee or institutional review board approval;
  • informed consent procedures;
  • participant safety, privacy, and confidentiality;
  • trial registration, where applicable;
  • disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest.

If reviewers suspect unethical conduct, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, they should inform the editor confidentially.

5. Reporting Quality and Transparency

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is reported clearly, completely, and transparently. The manuscript should provide enough detail to allow readers to understand, critically appraise, and potentially replicate the work.

Where appropriate, reviewers are encouraged to consider recognized reporting standards, such as:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials,
  • STROBE for observational studies,
  • PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses,
  • CARE for case reports,
  • COREQ for qualitative research,
  • or other relevant reporting guidelines (Equator Network).

6. Structure and Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is well organized and academically presented. The title, abstract, and keywords should accurately reflect the content of the manuscript. The manuscript should follow a clear and logical structure, normally including Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, or another format appropriate to the article type.

Tables, figures, images, and references should be relevant, clearly presented, properly labeled, and necessary to support the manuscript. References should be current, balanced, and appropriate to the subject area.

7. Language and Clarity

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Wound Research and Technology should be written in clear, professional academic English. Reviewers should comment on whether the writing is understandable, precise, coherent, and consistent in terminology.

If language problems substantially limit scientific understanding, reviewers may recommend major revision. However, reviewers should focus primarily on scientific quality, clarity, and interpretation rather than minor copyediting issues alone.

8. Reviewer Conduct and Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, upload, distribute, or use any part of the manuscript for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if they do not have sufficient expertise, cannot complete the review in a timely manner, or have any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality. Conflicts of interest may include personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial relationships with the authors or the work.

Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable. Reviewers should not request citation of their own work unless it is genuinely necessary for scholarly reasons.

9. Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, and helpful. Comments should ideally distinguish between:

  • major issues that affect validity, originality, interpretation, or suitability for publication; and
  • minor issues related to clarity, presentation, formatting, or completeness.

Whenever possible, reviewers should explain:

  • what the problem is,
  • why it matters, and
  • how the authors may improve it.

10. Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers are invited to make one of the following recommendations:

Accept
The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial standards and is suitable for publication with no or only very minor editorial changes.

Minor Revision
The manuscript is fundamentally sound, but small improvements are needed before publication.

Major Revision
The manuscript has potential merit, but substantial revisions are required in methodology, analysis, interpretation, structure, or reporting before it can be reconsidered.

Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, methodological, or scope-related standards, or has major flaws that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

Please note that reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor of the Journal of Wound Research and Technology.

11. Final Note to Reviewers

The Journal of Wound Research and Technology highly values timely, fair, and constructive peer review. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and multidisciplinary relevance of the journal.