Click here to download a PDF of the author guidelines.
Wound Practice and Research publishes original clinical, translational and experimental research on all aspects of wound management and related subjects, provided they have scientific merit and represent an important advance in knowledge. There is no submission fee nor page charges.
The editor and the editorial board have specific guidelines for prospective authors to follow when compiling an article for submission to the journal.
Terms of submission
The editors accept submissions in the form of original research articles, original clinical studies, case reports, reviews and letters to the editor. Each submission is evaluated on its merit, relevance, accuracy, clarity and applicability to the journal. Submissions will be accepted from any country but must be written in English. The submitting author must certify that all authors have seen and approved the manuscript content and that the work has not previously been published and will not be published elsewhere. Once it is published, the article and its illustrations become the property of the journal, unless rights are reserved before publication.
All work is copy-edited to journal style. The editors reserve the right to modify the style and length of any article submitted so that it conforms to journal format. Major changes to an article will be referred to all authors for approval prior to publication. Major editorial support may also be stated in the acknowledgements section.
The journal publishes articles of interest to readers in the areas of wound prevention, management and research. Submitted work may take any of the following forms:
A maximum of 4000 words in the main text plus up to 50 references. The abstract, references, tables and figure legends are excluded from the word count, as are acknowledgements and other end matter.
A maximum of 4000 words in the main text plus up to 50 references. The abstract, references, tables and figure legends are excluded from the word count, as are acknowledgements and other end matter.
Reviews are usually 2500 words in the main text plus up to 40 references. A review describes and evaluates the current knowledge of a subject, identifies gaps or inconsistencies, and includes critical evaluation with recommendations for future research.
A maximum of 4000 words in the main text with unlimited references. A systematic review describes planned analysis and evaluation of all available research studies on a particular clinical issue, is conducted in accordance with scientific principles, and may include recommendations for future research.
A maximum of 2000 words. A case study is a combination of a recount (retelling of events as they occurred) and an information report (classification and description of something), and can be presented in different ways to give a cohesive account.
Letter to the editor
A maximum of 1000 words, plus eight references and normally no more than one table or one figure. Letters are the forum for either:
- Correspondence – comments with critical assessment of papers recently published in Wound Practice and Research which, at the editor’s discretion, will be sent to the authors of the original paper for comment, and then both letter and reply published together; or
- Research letters – observations providing concise and important new information. Research letters are formatted as letters, i.e. in individual paragraphs with no headings and no abstract.
The lead authors of letter responses are responsible for contacting all authors of the original paper to ascertain whether they wish to be included in the reply.
All authors must meet all four criteria for authorship based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations (see Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals – ICMJE Recommendations – available at http://www.icmje.org):
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All authors and contributors (i.e., individuals who contributed to the preparation of the manuscript but who do not meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship, including medical writers/editors) must specify their individual contributions at the end of the text in the Acknowledgements section. Individuals who did not contribute to the manuscript development but who deserve to be acknowledged for their contribution to the study (e.g., study investigators, persons who provided important technical expertise, or the participants as a group) should be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.
If the author(s) wishes to reproduce copyrighted work, it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain written permission from the copyright holder and to submit the original copy of that permission to the editor.
Acknowledgements should be as brief as possible. Contributions from anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed. For individuals thanked in this section, or acknowledged elsewhere in the text, please provide names (initials and surname) and affiliations. Any editorial assistance should be acknowledged. If appropriate, the role of the funding source (e.g., in-study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data) must be described in this section.
Please include a separate Funding section after your Acknowledgements which details your sources of funding. Any grant support that requires acknowledgement should be mentioned. The names of funding organisations should be written in full. If this affects the anonymity of authors, it should be disclosed in the cover letter to the editor and not appear in the main document. Where a funding source is declared, the role of the funding source (e.g., in-study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data) must be described. If the funding source had no such involvement, this must be stated.
Where no specific funding was received, please insert the following statement: ‘This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors’.
A statement of ethics considerations must be provided before the Conflict of interest statement. If this affects the anonymity of authors, it should be included in the title page and not appear in the main document. If an ethics statement is not applicable, this must be stated, and justification provided.
Conflict of interest statement
The conflict of interest section in the manuscript submission process must be answered. It is the responsibility of all authors to disclose any financial and non-financial relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential or actual conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed within the manuscript after the ethics statement. If this affects the anonymity of authors, it should be disclosed in the cover letter to the editor and not appear in the main document. If there are no conflicts of interest to report, this must be stated.
Parts of the manuscript
The title page must be a Word file and include:
- A short informative title which should not contain abbreviations;
- The full names of the authors, including first name, middle name, and last name of each author, with highest academic degree(s) and institutional affiliations;
- The name and address of the corresponding author, including email address and contact phone number;
- The total word count and up to five key words.
Main text file
As papers are double-blind peer reviewed, the main text file should not include any information that might identify the authors. The main text file must be a Word file and should be presented in the following order:
- Title, abstract, key words;
- Main text; Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgements, Funding, Ethics, Conflict of interest.
- Tables (should be a Word file with each table complete with title and footnotes);
- Figures (must be jpegs);
- Figure legends;
- Appendices (if relevant).
Figures and tables should also be supplied as separate files.
Abstract and keywords
Original research reports and systematic reviews require structured abstracts of no more than 200 words. Abstracts should be structured into four paragraphs as follows: (1) Aims/hypothesis; (2) Methods; (3) Results; (4) Conclusions/interpretation. The abstract should contain data to support the main results of your paper. Please do not include unexplained abbreviations.
For clinical trials, the trial registry number should be included at the end of the abstract.
For randomised controlled trials (RCTs), abstracts should include the checklist items set out in the CONSORT guidelines.
If data have been deposited in a public repository, authors should include the dataset name and repository name and number at the end of the abstract.
Up to five key words should be provided in alphabetical order at the end of the abstract.
Please use abbreviations only when necessary and define them in a separate list, in alphabetical order, given after the keywords. Abbreviations should not normally appear in the title or abstract.
The Introduction should contain a clear statement of the aim and novelty of the study. It should include neither results nor conclusions.
Enough information should be given to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings.
The methods must be detailed enough that others with access to the data would be able to reproduce the results.
Clinical trials mentioned in the text The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that, where trials are mentioned, for example in secondary analyses or meta-analyses, the trial registration number should be included at the first mention of the trial in the manuscript.
Description of patients/participants Detailed descriptions should be provided of the individuals’ clinical characteristics upon which individuals were classified.
Informed consent and ethics committee approval
Human investigations A paper describing experimental work in humans must also include in the Methods section: (1) a statement that indicates that informed consent has been obtained from patients where appropriate; (2) a statement that the responsible ethics committee (institutional review board) has given approval, and/or indicate that the reported investigations have been carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2008. Do not use participant names, initials nor hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material.
Animal investigations Manuscripts reporting data obtained from research using animals must include a statement of assurance that all animals received humane care. Study protocols must be in compliance with the institution’s guidelines or the National Research Council’s criteria for humane care as outlined in Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 86-23, Revised 1985). A statement to this effect must be provided within the Methods section.
Statistical analyses Describe statistical methods in sufficient detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. Computer software packages that are used for anything other than widely known standard statistical procedures should be identified by name or acronym and by author or organisation of origin. If t tests were used it should be stated whether these were paired or unpaired. Reference for statistical methods should preferably be to standard works (with pages stated) rather than to papers in which designs or methods were originally reported. When variability is expressed in terms of the SEM or SD, the number of observations (n) must also be given (please provide exact n values, rather than ranges, e.g. n=3–6). When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Both the sample size and statistical significance should be predefined. Details of statistical outcomes should be given, such as estimated effect size, precision and significance (e.g. p values).
The results should be stated concisely without discussion and should not normally contain any references. The same data should not be presented in figures and tables. Do not repeat all the data that are set out in the tables or figures in the text; emphasise or summarise only important observations.
The Discussion should deal with the interpretation of the results and not recapitulate them. The Discussion could include: a statement of principal findings; the strengths and weaknesses of the study; the strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results; the meaning of the study; possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers; unanswered questions; and future research.
The referencing format is based on the Vancouver style, the main feature of which is the use of numbers at the point of reference, in superscript, so as not to interfere with the flow of words. Each number corresponds to a single reference provided in the reference list at the end and, once assigned a number, a reference retains that number throughout the text, even if cited more than once. If more than one work is quoted in a reference, each work must be assigned a number. Following are some examples of references from different sources:
Articles in journals
• Standard journal article: list all authors if less than seven, if seven or more list first three:
Whitby DJ, Ferguson MW. Immunohistochemical localization of growth factors in fetal wound healing. Dev Biol 1991;147:207–15.
Jeffrey JJ, Ehlich LS, Roswit WT. Serotonin: an inducer of collagenase in myometrial smooth muscle cells. J Cell Physiol 1991;146:399–406.
• Organisation as author:
The Royal Marsden Hospital Bone-Marrow Transplantation Team. Failure of syngenic bone-marrow graft without preconditioning in post-hepatitis marrow plasma. Lancet 1977;2:742–44.
• No author given:
Coffee drinking and cancer of the pancreas (Editorial). BMJ 1981;283:628.
• Volume with supplement:
Magni F, Rossoni G, Berti F. BN-62021 protects guinea-pig from heart anaphylaxis. Pharmacol Res Commun 1988;20(Suppl 5):75–78.
• Issue with supplement:
Gardos G, Cole JO, Haskell D, Marby D, Paine SS, Moore P. The natural history of tardive dyskinesia. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1988;4(4 Suppl):31S–37S.
• Issue with part:
Reif S, Terranova VP, El-Bendary M, Lebenthal E, Petell JK. Modulation of extracellular matrix problems in rat liver during development. Hepatology 1990;12(3pt1):619–25.
• Article containing comment:
Piccoli A, Bossatti A. Early steroid therapy in IgA neuropathy: still an open question (comment). Nephron 1989;51:289–91. Comment on Nephron 1988;48:12–17.
• Article commented on:
Kobayashi Y, Fujii K, Hiki Y, Tateno S, Kurokawa A, Kamiyama M. Steroid therapy in IgA nephropathy: a retrospective study in heavy proteinuric cases (see comments). Nephron 1989;51:289–91.
Books and other monographs
• Personal author(s):
Majno GA. The healing hand: man and wound in the ancient world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1975.
• Chapters in a book:
Philips C, Wenstrup RJ. Biosynthetic and genetic disorders of collagen. In: Cohen IK, Diegelmann RF, Lindblad WJ, editors. Wound healing: biochemical and clinical aspects. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1992. p. 152–71.
• Conference proceedings:
Harley NH. Comparing radon daughter dosimetric and risk models. In: Gammage RB, Kaye SV, editors. Indoor air and human health. Proceedings of the Seventh Life Sciences Symposium; 1984 Oct 19–31; Knoxville (TN).
• In press:
McMahon SB, Monroe JG. Role of primary response genes in generating cellular responses to growth factors. FASEB J.
Tables and figures
Tables and figures are to be presented on separate pages, one per page.
Tables should be submitted as Word files and clearly typed, showing columns and lines. Number tables consecutively using Arabic numerals in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each. Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Explain in footnotes all non-standard abbreviations used in each table.
Figures must be submitted as separate high-resolution jpegs, at least 300 KB in size and no larger than 2 MB. Legends for any figures must be clearly labelled. Illustrations must be clear, well-drawn and large enough to be legible when reproduced. Titles of illustrations should be clearly labelled. Each figure must include its place, its number, and the orientation of the figure. Patients or other individual subjects should not be identifiable from photos unless they have given written permission for their identity to be disclosed; this must be supplied.
Submission of manuscripts
Wound Practice and Research, in conjunction with Cambridge Media, uses the world’s leading manuscript management system – ScholarOne. Submission of manuscripts will only be accepted via this online program.
To submit manuscripts, go to http://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/wpr and log into your Author Centre.
The title page, main document, tables, figures and photographs, are to be uploaded separately. The main document must not contain names of authors – these should only appear in the title page. Please ensure image files are uploaded as jpegs and are a MINIMUM of 300 KB and no larger than 2 MB in size. The manuscript may be accompanied by a Word document with tables, figures and photographs embedded so as to show their preferred positions. This separate file can be uploaded at Step 6 of the submission process.
To create an account when using the system for the first time, click on ‘Create an Account’ in the login screen. Please enter as much information as possible when creating an account.
Once in the system, the steps to submit an article are:
- Step 1 – Add manuscript type, title, running head (abbreviated title) and abstract;
- Step 2 – Upload files;
- Step 3 – Add key words – at least two are required, up to five allowed;
- Step 4 – Add co-author and edit your details (if necessary);
- Step 5 – Nominate three reviewers*;
- Step 6 – Add manuscript information and questions on funding, ethics, conflict of interest and copyright;
- Step 7 – Review and submit.
* The names of three reviewers for the manuscript must be included during submission.
Submitted manuscripts are acknowledged by a system-generated email.
The Wound Practice and Research ScholarOne website has comprehensive guidelines and online tutorials to assist in using the system. Click on ‘Help’ in the top right hand corner and choose ‘Author’ as your role to access author guides.
Peer review process
The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to journal readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are double-blind peer reviewed. Papers will only be sent to review if the editor determines that the paper meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements. The editor’s decision is final. In-house submissions, i.e. papers authored by editors or Editorial Board members of the title, will be sent to editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias. If the manuscript does not conform to the submission guidelines, the author will be asked to amend prior to peer review. The peer review process is managed online in the ScholarOne system. Decisions are communicated by system-generated emails to the corresponding author.
If you are asked to revise your manuscript, you will be expected to provide a covering letter that responds in detail to each point raised by reviewers or editors, and to indicate, using a different colour font, all changes and new material in your paper, ensuring that such changes will be clear if referees print your manuscript in black and white (do not use the ‘track changes’ mode of Word). If a manuscript returned to the authors for revision is not returned to the Editorial Office within the stipulated time period (usually four weeks), it may be treated as a new manuscript.