All scientific articles for the journal “Urology” submitted in electronic or paper version are subject to reviewing.
The Head of Editorial verifies the compliance of an article typography to the journal requirements within 10 days and forwards this article to the Science Editor to verify the compliance of an article to the journal specialization, scientific value and sends it to an appropriate reviewer for scientific review.
A member of the Editorial Board or engaged specialist can be a reviewer.
Review period - 1 week. Editorial Board controls this period and it can be enlarge if needed.
A review should point to the title and content accordance, actuality, scientific level, merits and demerits and practicability. A reviewer gives his conclusion regarding this article: a) article should be published; b) article needs to be corrected; c) article needs another review of other reviewer; d) article is inappropriate (in this case an author will get a reasonable refusal).
A review can be send to an author upon the request via e-mail and it can be also send to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and to the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation upon the request.
In case that an article needs to be corrected, a reviewer sends it to an author with suggestion to correct an article and accept comments or refute them (in part or in whole). A corrected article can be reviewed once again if needed.
An author gets a reasonable refusal if his article is inappropriate, but he can ask for another review by other reviewer.
The final decision about publication and its time limits is made by the Editorial Board by open voting. It’s possible to publish articles in some cases when it has positive reviews, by joint decision of the Head of Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief. In disputed situation the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. All decisions on each article are state in the protocol of a session.
Manuscripts of reviews are retained in Editorial for 5 years.
A procedure for articles reviewing for publication in the Journal “Urology” adopted earlier will have lost force on the entry into force this document.
To contribute to the decision-making process about the appropriateness of publishing the article and to assist in improving the quality of the article, the reviewer must act objectively and in a timely manner.
Peer reviewer should respect the confidentiality of any information provided by the author or the editor. Peer reviewer should not retain a copy of the manuscript.
Reviewer should notify the editor of the material published earlier in this or any other publication, if any.
Reviewer should inform the editor and, if necessary, pass the article to alternative reviewer, in the case of a potential conflict of interest (financial, organizational or other relationship between the reviewer and the author).
Reviewer should follow the position statements developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore 2010 (http://www.singaporestatement.org/)
Retraction of already published article is an extreme measure and is used in the event of establishing the facts that were not known during the review process such as:
• violations of law or defamation
• fraudulent or inaccurate use of data, especially those that might pose a serious health risk.
While considering article, the Editorial Board may screen the submitted manuscript for copied material with the use of Антиплагиат http://www.antiplagiat.ru/ (plagiarism detection software). If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. (http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/plagiarism%20A.pdf)