Article Content

This month's issue of Advances in Skin & Wound Care is all about thanking our peer reviewers. High-quality, double-blind peer review is the foundation of scholarship, and the journal would not exist without it; every single one of our feature articles is assessed by at least two qualified experts. It is critical not only for the quality of our final product, but it also helps authors improve their writing, informs evidence-based practice, and furthers the skin and wound care discipline as a whole. We do everything we can to ensure that our authors and peer reviewers have an excellent experience when they select Advances as their avenue for publication. However, this process requires us to source and maintain a large, working database of engaged professionals.


To that end, Advances is issuing a call for peer reviewers from diverse backgrounds and clinical experiences who are willing to contribute to scholarship from behind the scenes. Our peer reviewers come from all areas of skin and wound care and represent all levels of educational attainment and practice. If you are interested in participating, please email an updated copy of your CV or resume to


Reasons to Join

Becoming a peer reviewer is an excellent way to stay abreast of the latest evidence and make a difference for your peers and patients. It is also a great way to support your professional development; peer reviewers can claim up to 2 hours of CE/CME credit for completed reviews and are welcome to list their service on their CV. Reviewers who consistently submit prompt, thoughtful reviews are considered for invitation to the Peer-Review Panel and Editorial Advisory Board of the journal.


Getting Started

Our editors use your CV to identify your level of expertise and area(s) of interest in order to create a profile for you in our online submission site, Editorial Manager. Once your profile is active, we match you with incoming manuscripts that we believe you may be interested in and invite you to review. The automated invitation email contains information about the manuscript and all of the instructions you need to complete your review successfully.


Article Types

There are two main types of articles that Advances receives for review: CE/CME Features (educational articles) and scientific Regular Features (Original Investigations, Literature Reviews, Case Reports, etc). Although the format for reviews is the same, we ask you to review these articles each with a slightly different lens.


CE/CME Features

These articles are intended to educate practicing healthcare professionals. The article is best if it interprets the literature and presents the data in a format that can be translated for practice. The emphasis is not on presenting new material or presenting a scientific review of the literature. Instead, the evidence should be presented clearly, with consideration for expert opinion/experience and patient preference along with restraints of healthcare systems (where appropriate).


Regular Features

These articles are intended to further our shared discipline and present new findings to wound care professionals. The article is best if it builds on previous findings with unique and innovative results and presents the data in a format that can be translated for practice. The article may incorporate expert opinion/experience and patient preference along with healthcare systems considerations such as feasibility and cost.


The Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate submitted manuscripts for suitability for publication, relevance to readers, and consistency with evidence-based practice-not to act as a copy editor. All comments should be specific, constructive, and intended to enhance the manuscript. Reviewers will be asked to make a final recommendation after reading the submission in its entirety: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.


Time Commitment

All reviewers are given 1 week to complete their review after accepting the invitation; reviews should not take more than an hour or two. You are always welcome to decline a request if you feel the topic does not match your expertise or the timing does not work for your schedule. Generally, reviewers should get between 4 and 6 invitations a year, although this varies based on submissions.


If you ever have any concerns related to peer review, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office for clarification! For further information, please visit the 'Info for Authors & Reviewers' section of our website at