Peer-Review Policy

Peer Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all manuscripts submitted to the journal “Experimental and Clinical Urology”. “Experimental and Clinical Urology” performs a peer review of all materials, received by the Editorial Office: editorials, original articles, reviews, clinical cases, and guidelines. Comments and letters to the Editor-in- Chief are not subjected to peer review. Peer reviewing ensures maintaining high quality of the journal’s content and allows assessing the concrete contribution to the development of main research areas on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Initial assessment

Before appointing a reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial assistant confirm: 1 The compliance of the submitted manuscript to the Aims and Scope of the journal; 2 The accompanying documents and authors’ signatures (see Author Guidelines); 3 The format and structure of the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines); 4 The funding statement, conflict of interests, contributions of each author to the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines, Conflict of Interest); 5 The compliance of the submitted manuscript to ethical policy of the “Experimental and Clinical Urology” (Approvals obtained from Ethics Committees when publishing the findings of researches on humans or laboratory animals or written informed consent collected from patients when submitting clinical cases); 6 The uniqueness and originality of the manuscript. Incoming material is checked for plagiarism and borrowing (see Author Guidelines).

At the stage of initial evaluation, the submitted material is reviewed by the Editor-in- Chief and editorial assistant and may be returned to the authors for revision. Articles suitable for the further review will be subjected to the evaluation by two independent reviewers. If the submitted material does not correspond to the Aims and Scope of the journal, the Editorial Board may reject the manuscript without conducting a peer review.

Reviewers

Selection All manuscripts submitted to the journal that requires the expert evaluation are subjected to a double-blind peer review. The name of the reviewer can be disclosed at the author’s request. Disclosure of a reviewer’s name does not affect the process and the principle of further work. The name of a reviewer is disclosed by the Editor-in-Chief if the reviewer declares the manuscript to be unreliable or contain falsified information.

All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of peer-reviewed articles within the last 3 years. All reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial office for 5 years and may be requested by any interested author. The Editor-in-Chief selects independent reviewers from the biomedical community. After agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer receives materials for peer reviewing. Manuscripts for review are sent to the reviewer via the electronic manuscript submission system. The peer-reviewing should be performed in 14 days.

Each reviewer must disclose to editors any relationships or activities that could bias his or her opinion of the manuscript, and should recuse himself or herself from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests (see Conflict of Interest). In case the reviewer cannot perform the reviewing, he or she can recommend to the Editor-in-Chief other reviewers in this field of knowledge. Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor follow the principles and recommendations of the World Organization of Medical Editors on selecting the reviewer.

Peer review of statistics Original research manuscripts containing statistical analysis are sent to the peer review of statistics. The requirements for the description of statistical methods are presented in the rules for authors (see Author Guidelines).

Ethics of Peer Review

The Experimental and Clinical Urology asks the reviewers to follow the basic principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

1) Agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;

2) Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;

3) Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others; 4) Declare all potentially conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;

5) Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;

6) Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments,

7) Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;

8) Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise

9) Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Reviewer’s report and suggestions

After peer reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer gives his or her report suggesting that: 1) Manuscript may be accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by a proofreader. The timeline of publication is set by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and the Editorial Board. 2) Manuscript requires revision. The paper needs minor or major revision and second time reviewing. The corresponding author receives an anonymous reviewers’ comments by email, need to revise paper and then upload revised version to the Journal's site. 3) Manuscript should be rejected. The corresponding author receives a well-argued denial.

The editorial office send copies of reviews or motivated refusals to the authors of the submitted manuscripts, and may send their copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the corresponding request to the editorial office.

Manuscript revision

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the manuscript, the editorial office of the journal sends the reviews to the author for the revision. The revision of the manuscript is limited up to 2 months from the date of sending the electronic message to the corresponding author via email and the electronic system. The revised manuscript is then submitted by the corresponding author for the second-round peer-review.

In case of disagreement with the comments of the reviewer, the author can provide a well-argued answer to the editorial office of the journal. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable differences concerning the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript to the third reviewer. The decision in conflict situations is made by the Editor-in- Chief.

Refusal to correct a manuscript If the authors decide not to revise their articles, they have to notify the editorial office in writing of their refusal from publishing the manuscript. Should the authors fail to return the revised version within 3 months after receiving the review, even in the absence of the authors’ notice of their refusal to revise the paper, the editorial office will strike it off the register. In such cases, the authors are duly notified that their manuscript will not be published owing to the expiration of the time specified for revision of the paper.

Appeal

The author has a right to lodge an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief during 30 days from the rejection of the article in case if the author doesn’t agree with the decision of the Editorial Office and finds that the article was rejected unfairly. The appeal should include all the comment made by the Editors and Reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief can change initial decision in a case that unfairness of the comments would be proved and/or the Authors would support their point of view. The Editor-in-Chief has a right to appoint the second round reviewing and chooses independent reviewers from national and international biomedical community. If the Editor-in- Chief chooses the Reviewers who are non-Russian speakers, the Editorial Office translates the manuscript free of charge once the Authors’ agreement is received. If the Reviewers recommend the manuscript for the publication and state the previous reviews as unfair, the Editor-in-Chief initializes internal inquiry in competency of the Reviewers and the Publishing Editor with their temporary suspension. The Authors will be notified by written notice about the re-registration of the article.

After the decision on the manuscript publication has been made, the Editorial Office notifies the Author and sets time limits for the publication.