Journal of Urological Surgery is the official publication of Society of Urological Surgery. The publication language of the journal is English.
Journal of Urological Surgery does not charge any fee for article submission or processing. Also manuscript writers are not paid by any means for their manuscripts.
The journal should be abbreviated as “J Urol Surg” when referenced.
The Journal of Urological Surgery accepts invited review articles, research articles, brief reports, letters to the editor, and images that are relevant to the scope of urology, on the condition that they have not been previously published elsewhere. Basic science manuscripts, such as randomized, cohort, cross-sectional, and case control studies, are given preference. All manuscripts are subject to editorial revision to ensure they conform to the style adopted by the journal. There is a double blind peer kind of reviewing system.
The editorial and publication process of the Journal of the Journal of Urological Surgery are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal is in conformity with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Priority for publication is given to accepted articles derived from AGEP projects (research and development initiatives) conducted under the Urological Surgery Association.
Publication Language
Articles are published in English.
Article Submission
All manuscripts should be submitted via https://jus.manuscriptmanager.net online submission system.
Editorial Process
Following receiving of each manuscript, a checklist is completed by the Editorial Assistant. The Editorial Assistant checks that each manuscript contains all required components and adheres to the author guidelines, after which time it will be forwarded to the Editor in Chief. Following the Editor in Chief's evaluation, each manuscript is forwarded to the Associate Editor, who in turn assigns reviewers. Generally, all manuscripts will be reviewed by at least three reviewers selected by the Associate Editor, based on their relevant expertise. Associate editor could be assigned as a reviewer along with the reviewers. After the reviewing process, all manuscripts are evaluated in the Editorial Board Meeting.
The Journal of Urological Surgery's editor and Editorial Board members are active researchers. It is possible that they would desire to submit their manuscript to the Journal of Urological Surgery. This may be creating a conflict of interest. These manuscripts will not be evaluated by the submitting editor(s). The review process will be managed and decisions made by editor-in-chief who will act independently. In some situation, this process will be overseen by an outside independent expert in reviewing submissions from editors.
Policy on Artificial Intelligence Usage
In our pursuit of scholarly excellence, this policy outlines the principled use of artificial intelligence (AI) in our journal. Authors employing AI tools must transparently disclose their methods, ensuring ethical conduct and full accountability. This policy underscores the importance of transparency, responsible authorship, and the prohibition of AI-generated content as primary sources. Through these guidelines, we maintain the integrity of our academic contributions while embracing the evolving landscape of AI technology.
1. Authorship and AI: Authors utilizing AI tools in manuscript writing, image/graphical element production, or data collection and analysis must transparently disclose the specifics of AI tool usage in the Materials and Methods (or equivalent) section of the paper. This disclosure should include details on how the AI tool was employed and which specific tool was utilized. Authors retain full responsibility for the content of their manuscript, even sections generated by an AI tool, and are accountable for any violations of publication ethics. Authors must confirm the absence of plagiarism in text or images produced by AI, ensuring proper attribution and full citations for all quoted material.
2. Transparency in AI Usage: Authors are required to openly acknowledge the use of AI tools in their submissions, detailing their role in manuscript creation, image/graphical element production, or data analysis. Authors are liable for any potential ethical breaches, including plagiarism, in materials generated by AI assistance.
“AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements. Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.” COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI tools. Detailed information about the statement can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
After reviewing the COPE statement, the editors of the Journal of Urological Surgery have decided that papers should include a statement in a section called “Declaration Regarding the Use of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies” to let readers know if AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the writing process. It's important to remember that all authors are responsible for the content of their work. This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, or references (such as Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero, and others). If there is nothing to declare, there is no need to add a statement.
It is suggested that authors follow this format when preparing their statement:
During the preparation of this work, the author(s) utilized [NAME OF TOOL(S) USED] to [DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE TOOL(S) WERE UTILIZED AND HOW THE VALIDITY OF THE OUTPUTS WAS EVALUATED]. After carefully reviewing and editing the content as necessary, full responsibility for the publication's content is taken by the author(s). This incorporation of AI tool usage primarily impacted [SPECIFY WHICH ASPECTS OF THE STUDY, ARTICLE CONTENTS, DATA, OR SUPPORTING FILES WERE AFFECTED/GENERATED].
Example:
During the preparation of this work, the author(s) utilized OpenAI's ChatGPT to generate summaries of research articles related to the topic. These summaries were evaluated by comparing them to manually written summaries by experts in the field. Upon confirming the accuracy and relevance of the generated summaries, they were integrated into the literature review section of the manuscript. After carefully reviewing and editing the content as necessary, full responsibility for the publication's content is taken by the author(s). This incorporation of AI tool usage primarily impacted the efficiency of literature review process and the comprehensiveness of the gathered research insights.
3. Editorial Transparency: Editors incorporating AI tools in the manuscript evaluation process must maintain transparency in their approach. The utilization of AI should be clearly stated by the editorial board to uphold the integrity of the peer-review process.
4. Citation of AI-Generated Material: Citation of AI-generated material as a primary source is not permissible in our journal. Authors must rely on human-generated content for primary sources, ensuring the credibility and integrity of the research presented. By adhering to these guidelines, our journal aims to ensure the responsible and transparent integration of artificial intelligence, upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly rigor in our publications.
Preparation of Manuscript Manuscripts should be prepared according to ICMJE guidelines (http://www.icmje.org).
Original manuscripts require a structured abstract. Label each section of the structured abstract with the appropriate subheading (Objective, Materials and Methods, Results, and Conclusion). Letters to the editor do not require an abstract. Research or project support should be acknowledged as a footnote on the title page.
Technical and other assistance should be provided on the title page.
Title Page
Title: The title should provide important information regarding the manuscript's content. The title page should include the authors' names, degrees, and institutional/professional affiliations, a short title, abbreviations, keywords, financial disclosure statement, and conflict of interest statement. If a manuscript includes authors from more than one institution, each author's name should be followed by a superscript number that corresponds to their institution, which is listed separately. Please provide contact information for the corresponding author, including name, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers.
Running Head: The running head should not be more than 40 characters, including spaces, and should be located at the bottom of the title page.
Word Count: A word count for the manuscript, excluding abstract, acknowledgments, figure and table legends, and references, should be provided not exceed 3000 words. The word count for an abstract should be not exceed 250 words.
Conflict of Interest Statement: To prevent potential conflicts of interest from being overlooked, this statement must be included in each manuscript. In case there are conflicts of interest, every author should complete the ICMJE general declaration form, which can be obtained at: http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf
Abstract and Keywords: The second page should include an abstract that does not exceed 250 words. As most readers read the abstract first, it is critically important. Moreover, as various electronic databases integrate only abstracts into their index, important findings should be presented in the abstract.
Abstract
Objective: The abstract should state the objective (the purpose of the study and hypothesis) and summarize the rationale for the study.
Materials and Methods: Important methods should be written respectively.
Results: Important findings and results should be provided here.
Conclusion: The study's new and important findings should be highlighted and interpreted.
Other types of manuscripts, such as reviews and others will be published according to uniform requirements. Provide at least 3-5 keywords below the abstract to assist indexers. Use terms from the Index Medicus Medical Subject Headings List (for randomized studies a CONSORT abstract should be provided (http://www.consort-statement.org). After keywords in original research articles there must be a paragraph defining “What is known on the subject and what does the study add”.
Original Research
Abstract length: Not to exceed 250 words. “What is known on the subject and what dos the study add” not exceed 100 words.
Article length: Not to exceed 3000 words.
Original researches should have the following sections;
Introduction: The introduction should include an overview of the relevant literature presented in summary form (one page), and whatever remains interesting, unique, problematic, relevant, or unknown about the topic must be specified. The introduction should conclude with the rationale for the study, its design, and its objective(s).
Materials and Methods: Clearly describe the selection of observational or experimental participants, such as patients, laboratory animals, and controls, including inclusion and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. Identify the methods and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to reproduce your results. Provide references to established methods (including statistical methods), provide references to brief modified methods, and provide the rationale for using them and an evaluation of their limitations. Identify all drugs and chemicals used, including generic names, doses, and routes of administration. The section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was devised on STROBE (http://www.strobe-statement.org).
Statistics: Describe the statistical methods used in enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. Statistically important data should be given in the text, tables and figures. Provide details about randomization, describe treatment complications, provide the number of observations, and specify all computer programs used.
Results: Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and figures. Do not present all the data provided in the tables and/or figures in the text; emphasize and/or summarize only important findings, results, and observations in the text. For clinical studies provide the number of samples, cases, and controls included in the study. Discrepancies between the planned number and obtained number of participants should be explained. Comparisons, and statistically important values (i.e. p value and confidence interval) should be provided.
Discussion: This section should include a discussion of the data. New and important findings/results, and the conclusions they lead to should be emphasized. Link the conclusions with the goals of the study, but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data. Do not repeat the findings/results in detail; important findings/results should be compared with those of similar studies in the literature, along with a summarization. In other words, similarities or differences in the obtained findings/results with those previously reported should be discussed.
Study Limitations: Limitations of the study should be detailed. In addition, an evaluation of the implications of the obtained findings/results for future research should be outlined.
Conclusion: The conclusion of the study should be highlighted.
References
Cite references in the text, tables, and figures with numbers in parentheses. Number references consecutively according to the order in which they first appear in the text. Journal titles should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus (consult List of Journals Indexed in Index Medicus). The references are written in Vancouver style. Include among the references any paper accepted, but not yet published, designating the journal and followed by, in press. Authors are solely responsible for the accuracy of all references. Starting from the June 2024 issue, a CrossRef link will be added to the end of the references to direct to the article. You can access the article's DOI by clicking on the CrossRef link.
The number of references is limited to 5 for Letter to the Editor and Brief Report, 25 for Original Article, and 100 for Review.
Examples of References:
1. List All Authors Ghoneim IA, Miocinovic R, Stephenson AJ, Garcia JA, Gong MC, Campbell SC, Hansel DE, Fergany AF. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy or early cystectomy? Singlecenter analysis of outcomes after therapy for patients with clinically localized micropapillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Urology. 2011;77:867-870.
2. Organization as Author Yaycioglu O, Eskicorapci S, Karabulut E, Soyupak B, Gogus C, Divrik T, Turkeri L, Yazici S, Ozen H; Society of Urooncology Study Group for Kidney Cancer Prognosis. A preoperative prognostic model predicting recurrence-free survival for patients with kidney cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43:63-68.
3. Complete Book Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10th ed. Philadelphia, Elsevier&Saunders, 2012.
4. Chapter in Book Pearle MS, Lotan Y Urinary lithiasis: etiology, epidemiology, and pathogenesis. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10th ed. Philadelphia, Elsevier&Saunders, 2012, pp 1257-1323.
5. Abstract Nguyen CT, Fu AZ, Gilligan TD, Kattan MW, Wells BJ, Klein EA. Decision analysis model for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. J Urol. 2008;179:495a (abstract).
6. Letter to the Editor Lingeman JE. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate-If not now, when? J Urol. 2011;186:1762-1763.
7. Supplement Fine MS, Smith KM, Shrivastava D, Cook ME, Shukla AR. Posterior Urethral Valve Treatments and Outcomes in Children Receiving Kidney Transplants. J Urol. 2011;185(Suppl):2491-2496.
8. Web Page: Diabetes Australia. Gestational diabetes [Internet]. Canberra (AU): Diabetes Australia; 2015 [updated 2015; cited 2017 Nov 23]. Available from: https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/gestational-diabetes
Review Articles
Abstract length: Not to exceed 250 words.
Article length: Not to exceed 4000 words.
Review articles should not include more than 100 references. Reviews should include a conclusion, in which a new hypothesis or study about the subject may be posited. Do not publish methods for literature search or level of evidence. Authors who will prepare review articles should already have published research articles on the relevant subject. There should be a maximum of two authors for review articles.
Preparation of Manuscripts
The “Journal of Urological Surgery’’ follows the Recommendations for “the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals” (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors - http://www.icmje.org/). Upon submission of the manuscript, authors are to indicate the type of trial/research and provide the checklist of the following guidelines when appropriate:
CONSORT statement for randomized controlled trials (Moher D, Schultz KF, Altman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1987-91) (http://www.consort-statement.org/),
PRISMA for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.) (http://www.prisma-statement.org/),
STARD checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy (Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al, for the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:40-4.) (http://www.stard-statement.org/),
STROBE statement-checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies (http://www.strobe-statement.org/),
MOOSE guidelines for meta-analysis and systemic reviews of observational studies (Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting Meta-analysis of observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-12).
Clinical Trial Policy
All clinical trials, which are any research projects that prospectively assign individuals or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, in order to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome, must be registered in a public trials registry acceptable to the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE). Authors of randomized controlled trials must adhere to the CONSORT guidelines , and provide both a CONSORT checklist (for protocols, see the SPIRIT guidance) and flow diagram. We require that you choose the MS Word template at www.consort-statement.org for the flow chart and cite/upload it in the manuscript as a figure. Submitted manuscripts must include the unique registration number in the Abstract as evidence of registration.
You can register for clinical trials by visiting the following link:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/
To register the relevant record in the system and learn more about the protocol to be followed, please review the link below:
https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/how-register
Images in Urological Surgery
Article length: Not to exceed 500 words. Authors can submit for consideration an illustration and photos that is interesting, instructive, and visually attractive, along with a few lines of explanatory text and references. Images in Urology can include no more than 500 words of text, 5 references, and 3 figure or table. No abstract, discussion or conclusion are required but please include a brief title.
Urological Pathology
Article length: Not to exceed 500 words. Urological pathology can include no more than 500 words of text, 5 references, and 3 figure or table. No abstract, discussion or conclusion are required but please include a brief title.
Letters to the Editor
Article length: Not to exceed 500 words. Letters can include no more than 500 words of text, 5-10 references, and 1 figure or table. No abstract is required, but please include a brief title.
Brief Reports
Brief reports represent new developments or original incomplet studies. Brief reports include an abstract (no more than 100 words) and are limited to no more than 1500 words of text, a total of 2 inserts (tables or figures), 15 references.
How I do?
This type article explains a surgical technique. It includes an unstructured abstract not to exceed 50 words and article lenght is not to exceed 1500 words and 15 references.
Urologic Survey
Urological survey is not to exceed 250 words and only refers to orginal article. It includes the author’s summarized opinions about this article.
Tables, Graphics, Figures, and Images Tables: Supply each table on a separate file. Number tables according to the order in which they appear in the text, and supply a brief caption for each. Give each column a short or abbreviated heading. Write explanatory statistical measures of variation, such as standard deviation or standard error of mean. Be sure that each table is cited in the text.
Figures: Figures should be professionally drawn and/or photographed. Authors should number figures according to the order in which they appear in the text. Figures include graphs, charts, photographs, and illustrations. Each figure should be accompanied by a legend that does not exceed 50 words. Use abbreviations only if they have been introduced in the text. Authors are also required to provide the level of magnification for histological slides. Explain the internal scale and identify the staining method used. Figures should be submitted as separate files, not in the text file. High-resolution image files are not preferred for initial submission as the file sizes may be too large. The total file size of the PDF for peer review should not exceed 5 MB.
Authorship Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to assume public responsibility for the content. Any portion of a manuscript that is critical to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least 1 author.
Contributor's Statement All submissions should contain a contributor's statement page. Each manuscript should contain substantial contributions to idea and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of findings. All persons designated as an author should qualify for authorship, and all those that qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the text.
Acknowledgments Acknowledge support received from individuals, organizations, grants, corporations, and any other source. For work involving a biomedical product or potential product partially or wholly supported by corporate funding, a note stating, "This study was financially supported (in part) with funds provided by (company name) to (authors' initials)", must be included. Grant support, if received, needs to be stated and the specific granting institutions' names and grant numbers provided when applicable. Authors are expected to disclose on the title page any commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. All funding sources that supported the work and the institutional and/or corporate affiliations of the authors should be acknowledged on the title page.
Ethics When reporting experiments conducted with humans indicate that the procedures were in accordance with ethical standards set forth by the committee that oversees human experimentation. Approval of research protocols by the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Commitee, in accordance with international agreements ("WMA Declaration of Helsinki", "Guide for the Care and use of Laboratory Animals"), is required for all experimental, clinical, and drug studies. Studies performed on human require IRB or Ethics Commitee certificate including approval number. It also should be indicated in the “Materials and Methods” section. Patient names, initials, and hospital identification numbers should not be used. Manuscripts reporting the results of experimental investigations conducted with humans must state that the study protocol received institutional review board approval and that the participants provided informed consent. Non-compliance with scientific accuracy is not in accord with scientific ethics.
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: http://publicationethics.org).
We use iThenticate to screen all submissions for plagiarism before publication.
Conditions of Publication All authors are required to affirm the following statements before their manuscript is considered: 1. The manuscript is being submitted only to The Journal of Urological Surgery 2. The manuscript will not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration by The Journal of Urological Surgery 3. The manuscript has not been published elsewhere, and should it be published in the Journal of Urological Surgery it will not be published elsewhere without the permission of the editors (these restrictions do not apply to abstracts or to press reports for presentations at scientific meetings) 4. All authors are responsible for the manuscript's content 5. All authors participated in the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting or revising of the manuscript, and have approved the manuscript as submitted. In addition, all authors are required to disclose any professional affiliation, financial agreement, or other involvement with any company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript. Authors of accepted manuscripts will receive electronic page proofs and are responsible for proofreading and checking the entire article within two days. Failure to return the proof in two days will delay publication. If the authors cannot be reached by email or telephone within two weeks, the manuscript will be rejected and will not be published in the journal.
Copyright At the time of submission all authors will receive instructions for submitting an online copyright form. No manuscript will be considered for review until all authors have completed their copyright form. Please note, it is our practice not to accept copyright forms via fax, e-mail, or postal service unless there is a problem with the online author accounts that cannot be resolved. Every effort should be made to use the online copyright system. Corresponding authors can log in to the submission system at any time to check the status of any co-author's copyright form. All accepted manuscripts become the permanent property of the Journal of Urological Surgery and may not be published elsewhere in whole or in part ¾ without written permission. If article content is copied or downloaded for non-commercial research and education purposes, a link to the appropriate citation [authors, journal, article title, volume, issue, page numbers, digital object identifier (DOI)] and the link to the definitive published version should be maintained. Copyright notices and disclaimers must not be deleted.
Note: We cannot accept any copyright that has been altered, revised, amended, or otherwise changed. Our original copyright form must be used as is.
Abbreviations and Symbols Use only standard abbreviations. Avoid abbreviations in the title and abstract. The full term for an abbreviation should precede its first use in the text, unless it is a standard abbreviation. All acronyms used in the text should be expanded at first mention, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses; thereafter the acronym only should appear in the text. Acronyms may be used in the abstract if they occur 3 or more times therein, but must be reintroduced in the body of the text. Generally, abbreviations should be limited to those defined in the AMA Manual of Style, current edition. A list of each abbreviation (and the corresponding full term) used in the manuscript must be provided on the title page.
Online Article Submission Process The Journal of Urological Surgery uses submission software powered by Online Article Submission articles the website for submissions to the Journal of Urological Surgery is https://jus.manuscriptmanager.net. This system is quick and convenient, both for authors and reviewers.
The ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) number of the correspondence author should be provided while sending the manuscript. A free registration can create at http://orcid.org.
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.
English Language Editing All manuscripts are professionally edited by an English language editor prior to publication.
Subscription Information
Address: Angora Cad. 2007 Sokak Vadikent 90 sit. No: 41 Beysukent/ANKARA
Telephone: +90 312 236 18 55
Fax: +90 312 236 27 69
Online Submission: https://jus.manuscriptmanager.net
Web Page: jurolsurgery.org
E-mail: info@jurolsurgery.org
