Original Research
Structured manuscript with objective, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.
Author Preparation and Submission Standards
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors
Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology
Prepare manuscripts with clarity, methodological rigor, and policy alignment for efficient peer review and high-confidence publication outcomes.
45%APC Savings
ClinicalResearch Reach
FastEditorial Routing
Before Submission
Scope Fit and Editorial Positioning
Confirming scope alignment before full upload improves triage speed, reviewer matching, and decision quality.
Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology publishes evidence relevant to medical and surgical urology, including diagnostics, procedural innovation, therapeutics, outcome analysis, implementation strategy, and translational research.
Authors should clearly define clinical or scientific contribution and explain why the results matter for patient outcomes, resource allocation, guideline development, or procedure selection.
Submissions are strongest when they connect findings to practical care pathways rather than presenting isolated technical observations without clinical context.
Research involving multidisciplinary teams should explicitly map specialty contributions to support transparency and interpretive confidence.
If your manuscript includes novel procedure adaptation or technology integration, describe safety rationale and governance controls at sufficient detail for peer assessment.
Papers outside urology scope may be redirected or declined at triage to maintain review quality and editorial relevance.
Article Categories
Choose the Most Appropriate Manuscript Type
Format selection should match evidence maturity, methodological depth, and intended clinical impact.
Clinical Trial Report
Registration data, intervention protocol, endpoint hierarchy, and adverse event summary are required.
Observational Cohort or Registry Study
Case definition, confounder strategy, and sensitivity analyses should be explicitly reported.
Systematic Review / Meta-analysis
Transparent search strategy, inclusion criteria, bias appraisal, and synthesis method are essential.
Technical Note or Short Communication
Concise, high-value evidence with focused methods and clearly bounded claims.
Perspective / Editorial
Evidence-grounded commentary that advances strategic interpretation of current urology practice.
Authors should avoid selecting short formats for datasets requiring full methodological explanation; clarity and reproducibility take precedence over brevity.
If uncertain about format fit, contact the editorial office before submission for route guidance.
Manuscript Structure
Core Reporting Requirements
Consistent structure helps reviewers evaluate validity, applicability, and limitations efficiently.
- Title should be precise, clinically informative, and aligned with primary outcomes.
- Abstract should be structured with objective, methods, key results, and principal conclusion.
- Introduction should define gap, rationale, and study objective without overstated claims.
- Methods should provide reproducible detail on participants, interventions, measurements, and analysis.
- Results should separate primary and secondary findings and report uncertainty measures clearly.
- Discussion should interpret findings with limitations, external validity considerations, and practice implications.
- Conclusion should remain proportional to evidence strength and design constraints.
Tables and figures must be internally consistent with text statements, and all abbreviations should be defined at first use.
Where subgroup analyses are included, distinguish prespecified analyses from exploratory findings and explain interpretive boundaries.
Ethics and Integrity
Governance Standards for Submission
Ethical compliance and reporting transparency are non-negotiable components of editorial evaluation.
Ethics Approval
Human and animal studies must include committee approval identifiers and oversight details.
Informed Consent
Patient consent and privacy protection procedures must be stated when applicable.
Trial Registration
Prospective trial registration details should be provided for interventional studies.
Conflict of Interest
All authors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships relevant to the work.
Funding Statement
Funding sources and sponsor roles in design, analysis, and writing must be transparent.
Data and Code Disclosure
Availability statements should indicate repository location, restrictions, and reuse conditions.
Integrity reminder: Duplicate submission, undisclosed overlap, or manipulated image/data material will trigger formal investigation.
Formatting and Files
Submission Package Checklist
Complete submission packages improve routing speed and reduce avoidable revision requests.
- Main manuscript file with blinded or non-blinded structure as instructed by current workflow.
- Separate title page containing author names, affiliations, and corresponding author contacts.
- Figures and tables uploaded in publication-quality formats with clear legends.
- Cover letter summarizing novelty, relevance, and policy compliance declarations.
- Supplementary materials for protocol details, appendices, or extended analyses where needed.
- Language quality review completed to support clear reviewer interpretation.
Use consistent terminology for procedures, outcomes, and measurement units across all files to avoid editorial clarifications.
Reference formatting should be complete and accurate to support citation linking and indexing reliability after publication.
Peer Review and Revision
What Happens After Submission
Understanding the review path helps teams prepare efficient and high-quality responses.
Editorial Triage
Scope, integrity, and reporting quality are reviewed before external peer review invitation.
Reviewer Assignment
Specialist reviewers are selected based on manuscript topic and methodological profile.
Decision Communication
Decisions include clear rationale and prioritized revision requests.
Revision Round
Authors should provide point-by-point responses mapped to manuscript edits.
Final Evaluation
Editors assess revision quality, unresolved concerns, and publication readiness.
Production Workflow
Accepted papers proceed to copyediting, typesetting, metadata delivery, and publication scheduling.
Revision letters should cite exact section changes so reviewers can verify updates quickly and fairly.
Authors are encouraged to maintain professional, evidence-based tone when responding to critiques, especially for disputed interpretation points.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Authors should avoid overstating causality when design limitations do not support causal interpretation.
Ethics and consent declarations must match the study design and recruitment setting described in methods.
Cover letters should summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and scope fit in concise language for editorial routing.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Authors should avoid overstating causality when design limitations do not support causal interpretation.
Ethics and consent declarations must match the study design and recruitment setting described in methods.
Cover letters should summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and scope fit in concise language for editorial routing.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Authors should avoid overstating causality when design limitations do not support causal interpretation.
Ethics and consent declarations must match the study design and recruitment setting described in methods.
Cover letters should summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and scope fit in concise language for editorial routing.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Authors should avoid overstating causality when design limitations do not support causal interpretation.
Ethics and consent declarations must match the study design and recruitment setting described in methods.
Cover letters should summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and scope fit in concise language for editorial routing.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Authors should avoid overstating causality when design limitations do not support causal interpretation.
Ethics and consent declarations must match the study design and recruitment setting described in methods.
Cover letters should summarize novelty, clinical relevance, and scope fit in concise language for editorial routing.
Before submission, verify consistency between abstract claims, results tables, and discussion statements to avoid reviewer concern.
Methods sections should define eligibility criteria, intervention details, and analytical assumptions with reproducible precision.
Reporting checklist adherence improves editorial triage and accelerates assignment to specialist reviewers.
Revision responses are most effective when each reviewer point is mapped to exact manuscript changes.
Submit Your JMSU Manuscript
Use Manuscriptzone for structured workflow management or the simple form for fast intake; both routes follow the same editorial standards.
Editorial office: [email protected]
