Keloid Research welcomes submission of all manuscripts reporting on clinical trials whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4. As defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), a clinical trial is ‘any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome’. Keloid Research follows the trial registration policy of the ICMJE and considers only trials that have been registered before submission, and before the onset of patient enrollment.
For authors reporting phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials it is recommended to consult the CONSORT Statement and Checklist to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. In addition, including a Patient Flow Diagram in the manuscript is recommended for randomized studies. Authors must report the registration number and name of the trial registry at the end of the article abstract.
In accordance with the guidelines published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Keloid Research requires that all clinical trials be registered in any of the primary registers that participate in the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) or in EudraCT.
For more information, see the ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
To ensure that NIH-funded manuscripts are correctly identified during submission, we request that authors use full titles and/or full acronyms when referring to NIH funding. Please also note that the corresponding author is responsible for disclosing NIH funding for all coauthors.
Additional Journal Guidelines
Terminology / Nomenclature
Authors are encouraged to use standardized keloid terminology whenever possible. Consistent terminology improves communication among investigators and enhances the quality of scientific reporting. For proper terminology and definitions, please refer to the Keloid Research Foundation (KRF) Nomenclature Page:
Keloid Staging
For all clinical studies and clinical trials, authors are required to provide staging information for study participants according to the KRF Keloid Staging System.
Submission of clinical outcomes without appropriate staging information limits the interpretation and comparability of study results. We strongly encourage investigators to incorporate staging information into study design, data collection, and reporting.
Outcome Reporting
When reporting treatment outcomes, authors should use the KRF RECORD (Response Evaluation Criteria in Keloid Disorder) response criteria to ensure consistency, reproducibility, and comparability across studies.
Our collective goal is to improve the quality, consistency, and scientific rigor of keloid research worldwide. We hope these recommendations will facilitate more meaningful comparisons across studies and contribute to the development of evidence-based standards for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of Keloid Disorder.
Statistical Transparency and Study Population
To improve the scientific quality, transparency, and reproducibility of keloid research, authors are expected to adhere to the following principles:
1. Report All Enrolled Patients
Authors must account for all enrolled study participants. For example, if 100 patients are enrolled in a study, outcomes should be reported for all 100 patients, including withdrawals, losses to follow-up, treatment failures, and protocol deviations. Selective reporting of only a subset of patients is strongly discouraged.
2. Clearly Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Authors should clearly state the criteria used to enroll patients and explain any exclusions from the final analysis.
3. Demographics and Details of Prior Treatments
Authors should report the following information for the study population:
• Age, sex, race, and ethnicity of study participants.
• Anatomical location(s) of keloid lesions.
• Duration of disease.
• History of prior treatments.
• Number of prior treatment sessions or procedures.
• Time elapsed since previous treatment(s).
• Response to prior treatment(s), if known.
• History of recurrence following previous treatment(s).
Because prior therapies can significantly influence treatment response and disease behavior, adequate reporting of treatment history is essential for the interpretation and comparison of clinical outcomes.
4. Report Losses to Follow-Up
The number of patients lost to follow-up, withdrawn from treatment, or excluded from analysis should be explicitly reported.
5. Use Appropriate Denominators
Response rates, recurrence rates, and complication rates should be calculated using clearly stated denominators and should accurately reflect the entire study population whenever possible.
6. Focus on Keloid Disorder
The International Keloid Symposium is dedicated exclusively to the study of Keloid Disorder. Abstracts should focus on patients with clinically diagnosed keloid disease.
7. Do Not Combine Different Scar Disorders
Hypertrophic scars, burn scars, surgical scars, traumatic scars, and other forms of pathological scarring should not be combined with keloid patients in the same analysis unless data for patients with Keloid Disorder are reported separately.
8. Clearly Identify the Study Population
Authors should clearly specify whether the study population consists exclusively of patients with Keloid Disorder. Studies that combine multiple scar disorders without separate keloid-specific analyses may be difficult to interpret and may not be considered for presentation.
9. Transparency in Outcome Reporting
Positive, negative, and neutral outcomes are all scientifically valuable. Authors are encouraged to report outcomes objectively and completely, regardless of the direction of the findings.
10. Duration of Follow-Up
Authors must clearly report the duration of follow-up for all study participants. Follow-up should be reported as a median and/or mean duration, together with the range whenever possible. For studies evaluating treatment efficacy, recurrence, disease progression, or long-term outcomes, the duration of follow-up is essential for proper interpretation of results. Claims of treatment success should always be accompanied by the corresponding follow-up period.
Authors should also report:
• The minimum and maximum follow-up duration.
• The number of patients available for evaluation at each follow-up interval.
• The number of patients lost to follow-up.
• The timing and frequency of follow-up assessments.
Studies with limited follow-up should clearly acknowledge this limitation when interpreting treatment outcomes and recurrence rates.
We look forward to receiving your submissions and to welcoming you to Paris in June 2027.
With best regards,
