Editorial policies of the Journal of Urological Surgery are conducted according to the rules advised by Council of Science Editors and reflected in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (

Submitted manuscripts are subjected for double-blind peer-review. The scientific board guiding the selection of the papers to be published in the Journal consists of elected experts of the Journal and if necessary, selected from national and international experts in the relevant field of research. All manuscripts are reviewed by the editor, section associate editors and at least three internal and external expert referees. All research articles undergo review by statistical editor as well.

Submitted manuscripts are also subjected for the evaluation of plagiarism, duplicate publication by automatic software.  Authors are obliged to acknowledge if they published study results in full or in part in form of abstracts.

The authors of the accepted manuscripts should be in consent that the editor and associate editors could make corrections without changing the main text of the paper.
Manuscript format should be in accordance with Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (

The Review Process

Each manuscript submitted to the Journal of Urological Surgery is subject to an initial review by the editorial office in order to determine if it is aligned with the journal's aims and scope, and complies with essential requirements. Manuscripts sent for peer review will be assigned to one of the journal's associate editors that has expertise relevant to the manuscript's content. All manuscripts are single-blind peer reviewed. All accepted manuscripts are sent to a statistical and English language editor before publishing. Once papers have been reviewed, the reviewers' comments are sent to the Editor, who will then make a preliminary decision on the paper. At this stage, based on the feedback from reviewers, manuscripts can be accepted, rejected, or revisions can be recommended. Following initial peer-review, articles judged worthy of further consideration often require revision. Revised manuscripts generally must be received within 3 months of the date of the initial decision. Extensions must be requested from the Associate Editor at least 2 weeks before the 3-month revision deadline expires; the Journal of Urological Surgery will reject manuscripts that are not received within the 3-month revision deadline. Manuscripts with extensive revision recommendations will be sent for further review (usually by the same reviewers) upon their re-submission. When a manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Technical Editor undertakes a final edit and a marked-up copy will be e-mailed to the corresponding author for review and to make any final adjustments.


For the experimental, clinical and drug human studies, approval by ethical committee and statement on the adherence of the study protocol to the international agreements  (Helsinki Declaration revised 2013 ( are required. In experimental animal studies, the authors should indicate that the procedures followed were in accordance with animal rights (Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals, and they should obtain animal ethic committee approval. The Ethic Committee approval document should be submitted to the Journal of Urological Surgery together with the manuscript.

The approval of the ethic committee, statement on the adherence to international guidelines mentioned above and that the patients` informed consent is obtained should be indicated in the `Material and Method` section(including approval number) and is required for case reports whenever data/media used could reveal identity of the patient. The declaration of the conflict of interest between authors, institutions, acknowledgement of any financial or material support, aid is mandatory for authors submitting manuscript and the statement should appear at the end of manuscript. Reviewers are required to report if any potential conflict of interest exists between reviewer and authors, institutions.

Plagiarism: To re-publish whole or in part the contents of another author's publication as one's own without providing a reference.
Fabrication: To publish data and findings/results that do not exist.
Duplication: Use of data from another publication, which includes re-publishing a manuscript in different languages.
Salamisation: To create more than one publication by dividing the results of a study preternaturally. We disapproval upon such unethical practices as plagiarism, fabrication, duplication, and salamisation, as well as efforts to influence the review process with such practices as gifting authorship, inappropriate acknowledgements, and references. Additionally, authors must respect participant right to privacy. On the other hand, short abstracts published in congress books that do not exceed 400 words and present data of preliminary research, and those that are presented in an electronic environment are not accepted pre-published work. Authors in such situation must declare this status on the first page of the manuscript and in the cover letter. (The COPE flowchart is available at: 

We use iThenticate to screen all submissions for plagiarism before publication.

Home Archive Search Menu