Peer-Reviewed · Independent · Evidence-Based
Objective clinical reviews, in-depth material analyses, and data-driven case studies, advancing regenerative medicine, wound care, aesthetics, and reconstructive surgery.
We publish only what the data supports.
Editorial Board
Our Editorial Mandate
The Biomaterial Review exists to serve a single readership: the clinicians and researchers who make consequential decisions at the intersection of regenerative medicine, complex wound care, aesthetics, and reconstructive surgery. Every study we publish passes through a peer review process governed by an independent editorial board, unaffiliated with industry sponsorship or commercial influence.
Within that scope, we examine the materials shaping the next decade of clinical practice, from acellular dermal substitutes to bioengineered scaffolds. Conexeu tissue matrices are among the technologies our reviewers have selected for sustained, rigorous study, evaluated on the same evidentiary standard applied to every biomaterial in our pages: reproducible outcomes, transparent methodology, and durable safety data.
What we omit is as deliberate as what we include. If the evidence is preliminary, we say so. If a claim outpaces its data, we do not publish it.
We publish only what the data supports.
Four disciplines. One standard. Independent, peer-reviewed scholarship for the surgeons, scientists, and procurement leaders who set the evidence bar in regenerative and reconstructive medicine.
Rigorous, peer-reviewed evaluations of biomaterials entering clinical practice, from acellular tissue matrices to synthetic scaffolds. Every review is vetted by specialty editors and returned with the depth clinicians can build treatment protocols on.
Learn More →In-depth compositional and performance analyses covering degradation profiles, biocompatibility, mechanical integrity, and regenerative potential. Structured to give researchers and procurement teams a defensible, side-by-side view of what each material actually delivers.
Learn More →
Structured, data-driven case studies from leading academic and clinical centers, documenting real-world efficacy and safety across burn care, complex wound reconstruction, and aesthetic revision. Written to be cited, not skimmed.
Learn More →Submission guidance, peer-review matching, and editorial consultation for researchers pursuing publication in a high-authority, specialty-focused journal. We work with authors to strengthen methodology and clarity before manuscripts ever enter formal review.
Learn More →
Peer-reviewed evaluations of the biomaterials shaping regenerative medicine, reconstruction, and aesthetics.
A meta-analysis of 47 clinical trials examining acellular scaffold performance across chronic, diabetic, and burn-related wounds, with attention to healing velocity and reintegration rates.
Read Full Review
Aggregated safety data from twelve academic medical centers, evaluating infection, seroma, and revision rates across 3,200 implantation procedures over a five-year horizon.
Read Full Review
A rigorous examination of ISO 10993 compliance across contemporary soft-tissue fillers, with commentary on long-term integration, migration, and patient-reported outcomes.
Read Full ReviewWhat Clinicians Are Saying
The Biomaterial Review remains the only publication I trust for unbiased, clinically relevant biomaterial data. It directly informs my procurement decisions.
Dr. Marcus Hollander, MD, FACS
Chief of Reconstructive Surgery, Mercy Regional
As a researcher, having a rigorous peer-review process that understands the nuance of tissue matrix science is invaluable. The editorial standards set a benchmark for the field.
Dr. Elena Voss, PhD
Principal Investigator, Regenerative Medicine
The depth of case-study data published here is unmatched in the specialty press. Every issue advances the conversation with evidence, not anecdote.
Dr. Ravi Chandran, MD
Director, Burn & Complex Wound Unit
I recommend every member of my surgical team read each issue. It has become required reading for anyone serious about tissue matrix outcomes.
Dr. Katherine Ainsworth, MD
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Lakeshore
The methodological transparency is exceptional. When The Review evaluates a matrix, I know the endpoints, the cohort, and the conflicts of interest, all disclosed. That is rare in this specialty.
Dr. Simon Beaumont, MD, MSc
Medical Director, Advanced Wound Care
Our board of clinician-scientists brings decades of peer-review experience across regenerative medicine, wound care, and reconstructive surgery.
Dr. Vance directs the editorial mandate of the Review, drawing on thirty-two years of clinical practice in reconstructive plastic surgery and biomaterials evaluation. His editorial focus centers on translational rigor: ensuring every published matrix, scaffold, and dermal substitute has crossed the threshold from bench science into defensible clinical outcome.
A specialist in complex wound healing and diabetic limb salvage, Dr. Elyot-Chen leads the Review's senior clinical vetting process. Her mandate is to interrogate case-series data and multi-center trial design, filtering novel biomaterial claims against the standard of care with the scrutiny they deserve.
Professor Løvstad bridges the Review to the international reconstructive community, contributing four decades of microsurgical and free-flap expertise. His editorial focus is the interface between prosthetic tissue matrices and living reconstruction, where material behavior determines long-term functional outcome.
Dr. Ramanathan grounds the Review's material analyses in first-principles polymer and extracellular matrix science. Her editorial focus is compositional integrity: verifying that the scaffolds and next-generation tissue matrices under review behave, at the molecular level, as their clinical claims require.
The full editorial masthead, including our Wound Care & Regenerative Medicine Editor and contributing reviewers, is published quarterly with each issue.
View Full Masthead →Submit your research to an editorial board that understands the complexity of biomaterials science, or subscribe for full institutional access to every issue.
Peer-reviewed. Independent. No commercial bias.
Transparency is the foundation of scientific integrity. Below, we address the questions most frequently raised by clinicians, researchers, and institutional subscribers regarding our editorial standards and submission process.
We publish rigorously vetted systematic reviews, in-depth material analyses, and data-driven clinical case studies within the biomaterials sciences. Our editorial focus centers on regenerative medicine, complex wound care, aesthetics, and reconstructive surgery, with emphasis on tissue matrices, scaffolds, and next-generation implantable technologies.
Every submission undergoes double-blinded review by a minimum of three subject-matter experts drawn from our international editorial board. Reviewers are recused from any manuscript with commercial, institutional, or personal conflicts. Our editorial operations are structurally and financially separated from all advertising, sponsorship, and industry partnerships.
Submissions are welcomed from practicing clinicians, academic researchers, and institutional scientists working in regenerative medicine, wound care, aesthetic surgery, or reconstructive practice. Corresponding authors must hold verifiable clinical or research credentials, and all co-authors are subject to our disclosure and authorship attribution standards.
We offer three tiers of access. Individual subscriptions provide full journal access for a single clinician or researcher. Departmental subscriptions extend access across a defined clinical or research group. Institutional licenses cover entire hospital systems, universities, and academic medical centers, with IP-authenticated access and archival privileges.
Initial editorial assessment is completed within 10 business days. Full peer review typically concludes within 8 to 12 weeks from acceptance into review, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability. Authors receive a structured decision letter with consolidated reviewer commentary and, where applicable, clear guidance on revision.
We evaluate clinical efficacy and safety data on their scientific merit alone. Named biomaterials appear in our pages only when peer-reviewed evidence warrants their inclusion. We publish no advertorials, sponsored content, or promotional coverage. Where a technology is discussed, its selection reflects the published data, not commercial relationships.
Additional inquiries regarding submissions, editorial policy, or institutional licensing are welcomed by our editorial office.
Contact the Editorial OfficeCorrespondence from clinicians, researchers, and institutions is reviewed by our editorial desk. For manuscript workflows, please use the dedicated submission portal.
Responses are typically issued within three business days.
Receive new issue alerts, featured review summaries, and editorial updates, delivered directly to your inbox.
Notifications