Authorship

The site is written by practising UK clinicians and led by its Editor-in-Chief, Mr Masha Singh, a Consultant Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeon with a sub-specialty interest in skin oncology and reconstruction. An independent multidisciplinary editorial board — currently spanning plastic surgery, dermatology, pathology and radiology, with further specialties being appointed — reviews content within each member's specialty. The site does not commission or publish external authors, and is not a peer-reviewed journal.

What this means for the reader

Content is clinician-authored and reviewed within specialty by the editorial board; this independent review is being applied progressively across the site, beginning with the highest-stakes content. It is editorial review, not journal peer review. In practice:

Subject areas closest to the authors' daily practice (surgical management, margin planning, reconstruction, multidisciplinary workflow) are the most developed.
Subject areas that depend on another specialty (medical oncology systemic therapy, radiotherapy planning, dermatopathology, imaging) are written closely against current UK national guidance and reviewed by the relevant board member as that review is completed.
Where the evidence is contested, evolving or low quality, that is stated explicitly in the article rather than glossed over.

Reader feedback and corrections are welcomed via the contact page and are the most reliable mechanism through which the site improves.

UK guideline alignment

UK national guidance is the primary frame of reference: NICE clinical guidelines and technology appraisals, British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) guidance, BSDS surgical standards, BAPRAS reconstruction guidance, RCPath datasets, and the relevant national Cancer Alliance pathways. International guidance (ESMO, EADO, NCCN) is cited where it adds material that UK guidance does not, but UK practice takes precedence.

Evidence grading

Where a management recommendation could reasonably be questioned, it is tagged with its evidence basis using the simple visible scheme set out on the evidence grading key:

Guideline the recommendation is from a current UK national guideline.
Trial the recommendation is supported by randomised trial evidence.
NICE TA a NICE Technology Appraisal applies (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors, hedgehog inhibitors).
Consensus guidance is consensus / expert opinion in the absence of strong trial evidence.
Local MDT the call sits with the local multidisciplinary team and varies by centre.

This system is applied progressively across the highest-stakes decision points first — systemic therapy, sentinel lymph node biopsy, radiotherapy, immunosuppressed patients and rare adnexal tumours.

Review cycle

Every article carries an explicit last reviewed date in its header. Articles are revisited at least annually; high-churn topics (melanoma systemic therapy, Merkel cell carcinoma, new NICE Technology Appraisals) are revisited as guidance changes. A standing guideline-monitoring routine scans NICE, BAD, BSDS, BAPRAS, RCPath, ESMO and EADO output; articles affected by a new guideline are updated and marked with the new last reviewed date.

References

References follow Vancouver style and are linked to DOI or PubMed where available. The site prefers primary sources (UK national guidance, randomised trials in major journals, RCPath datasets) over secondary sources.

Corrections

Errors can be reported via the contact page. Substantive corrections are made promptly, the article's last reviewed date is updated, and a brief correction note is added to the article where the correction is material to clinical practice.

Independence & funding

The site is self-funded by its Editor-in-Chief. Editorial board members give their time voluntarily and are not paid. There is no third-party advertising, commercial sponsorship, advisory-board honoraria or industry support relating to skinoncology.net content. The Editor-in-Chief's separate financial interest in Dermafocal and Adept Surgical Ltd is declared on the funding page; it does not influence clinical coverage, evidence selection, editorial review or the site's free tools.

Language & accessibility

The site is pitched at a UK mixed-specialty clinical readership. Terminology is explained on first use across disciplines but clinical substance is not simplified. WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility is the design target.

What this site is not

It is not a substitute for a multidisciplinary team decision in an individual patient.
It is not a source of medical advice for patients.
It is not a peer-reviewed journal — articles are clinician-authored and reviewed by the editorial board within specialty, anchored to UK national guidance.

Editorial approach