Focus and Scope
Uro-Technology Journal (UTJ, Online ISSN 2836-1741) formerly known as Clinical Surgery Research Communications, is an open access, peer-reviewed, international journal available online. The journal publishes original articles, reviews, editorials, letters to the editor, rapid communications, and case reports in English, emphasizing the basic and clinical research relevant to all urologic diseases, the novel technological developments in the field of urology and their application in the clinical practice. The diagnosis, therapy, epidemiology, prevention, biomarkers, pathology, surgical innovations (such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, mini-invasive surgery) in urology are included but not limited to the scope of this journal. The journal publishes papers on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, andrology, sexual medicine, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology and surgical technologies. The editorial team welcomes basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases.
Section Policies
Editorial
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
 Peer Reviewed |
Original Article
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Review
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Case Report
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Letter to Editor
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Brief Correspondence
Word limit: 1,000 words max. (excluding references, tables, and figures) Abstract: Unstructured abstract (up to 200 words) that should introduce and briefly summarise the work and a patient summary (two or three short sentences in plain English to describe your findings to a nonmedical audience.)
References: 10 max.
Figures/tables: 2 max. (combined)
Description: These manuscripts report novel, exciting urological research. The focus may be basic, translational, or clinical and can include all aspects of urological care. The format is shorter than original articles and so articles best suited are those with concise presentation. These articles are not suited to pilot or incomplete studies with insufficient material for a full manuscript. Articles for this section may be directly submitted or invited by the editorial team following a previously submitted original article.
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Commentary
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Mini Review
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Surgical Technique
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Conference Abstract
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
1. Review criteria
Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:
▪ the material is original and timely;
▪ the manuscript is written clearly and in accordance with the guidelines for authors;
▪ appropriate study methods have been used;
▪ the data are valid;
▪ the conclusions are reasonable and well supported by the data;
▪ the information contained in the manuscript is important, topical, and medically relevant.
2. Peer Review Mode
UTJ uses single-blind peer review, which means the identity of the peer reviewer is kept confidential but the author’s identity is made known to the reviewer.
Usually, reviewers are given three weeks to complete their review. Extensions might be granted on request. At least two independent review reports are collected for each manuscript. However, sometimes the opinions of more reviewers are sought. Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. For research manuscripts, the editors may also seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer.
The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality in relation to the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors.
Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed to help improve the quality of the editorial or peer-review processes. Identifying information remains confidential. Final decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts are made by the Editorial Office.
3. Peer Review
Peer review is thus far the best practice and most important procedure to hunt problems in and contribute suggestions to manuscripts. A journal is not a court that adjudicates a study or a group, but a free forum that provides an opportunity for scholars to equally discuss a topic and broaden a thinking.
When inviting reviewers, editorial staff will check and make sure that:
▪ The reviewers' information is valid and reliable;
▪ The reviewers are qualified considering expertise and research background;
▪ The reviewers and authors have no potential conflict of interests.
Generally, all research articles, reviews, therapeutic briefs, model profiles and case reports submitted to UTJ undergo the standard external peer review process. (Usually non-research articles, e.g., editorials, conference abstracts, or other editorial materials, the reviews are completed directly by the editors).
4. Online review system
To ensure the most convenient and efficient peer review process possible, our peer reviews are conducted electronically via the OJS system, which can be accessed through the journal’s website: http://www.antpublisher.com/index.php/UTJ/user/register
5. Recognition for Reviewers
UTJ entered into a partnership with Publons. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. UTJ’s peer review system is now integrated into the Publons platform.
Reviewers can get recognition on the review work from Publons (http://home.publons.com). We strongly encourage our reviewers to create a Publons profile and add their review work on Publons.
6. Peer review flowchart
Technical evaluation. All submitted manuscripts will be evaluated by the Academic Editor within 48 hours of receipt for technical conformity including formatting, need for English language editing, and plagiarism check. Manuscripts that conform to the journal standards will be immediately passed to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) for peer review.
Peer review. The EIC will poll associate editors to determine if the manuscript should be sent out for external review or rejected. For manuscripts to be sent out for external review, the EIC will assign an editor for overseeing the review process. This will include recruiting expert reviewers who can complete the review in two weeks, and making a decision on the manuscript based on reviewer comments. Rejections will be made in concert with the EIC, and final approval for publication will be made by the EIC.
Revision. In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the authors are usually requested to revise the paper before resubmitting it to the Academic Editor. Manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers again after author revision, depending on whether the reviewer requested to check the revised version. Usually we allow at most two rounds of major revision per manuscript.
Editor Decision. Decisions can only be made by external Academic Editors, EIC and/or Associate Editor, an Editorial Board member if the former have conflict of interest with authors, Guest Editor if the manuscripts are submitted to the special issue he/she edits.
When making a decision, Academic Editors check:
▪ Whether the reviewers are qualified and suitable to review the manuscript;
▪ Whether the reviews were thorough and comments are adequate;
▪ Whether the authors have properly responded to reviewers’ comments;
▪ Whether the manuscript now meets the standard for publication.
Academic Editors will check again at this stage whether the manuscript contains plagiarism.
The Academic Editor will make a decision on a paper comprehensively based on all review comments. They can accept, reject, or ask the authors for revisions. Academic Editors can make a decision that conflicts with the reviewers, in which occasion, they must justify their decision.
If a manuscript is rejected, authors have an opportunity to appeal or complain the decision by contacting the Managing Editor of the journal. Subsequent procedures will be take at once.
Copyediting. The EIC will forward all approved manuscripts to copyediting.
Production, Proofreading and Publication. Production process contains layout editing, language editing and conversion to other formats for indexing purpose. This process are carried out by our internal professional editors. Only extensive language editing service will be charged if authors confirmed the need. We encourage authors to seek help from native English speaker colleagues prior to our free-of-charge language editing. Before final publication, authors have a last chance to proofread the final version and only make minor necessary corrections.
Correction and Retraction. Corrections on significant errors found after publication will be published separately in Correction form at the end of each issue. Small errors that do not influence the understanding of the study will not be published. We encourage authors to carefully proofread the final version and try to avoid such small corrections after papers are published online.
Retractions are published when authors, audience or editors found honest errors or scientific misconduct, etc., contained in the paper after publication. Editors will investigate the paper in question on a case by case basis, and will contact authors and reviewers before make a final decision of retraction.
Note: All manucripts will be technically evaluated by the publishing editor. Editorials, commentaries, and certain short notes will not generally go through the complete review process but reviewed internally by academic editors. All other manuscripts will go through the complete review process. Editors who are co-authors on a manuscript submitted to UTJ will not be involved in the review process or final decision to reject or approve for publication.
7. Submission turnaround time
▪ Initial review: 3 days
▪ External peer review: 2–3 weeks
▪ Publication ahead of print: within 2 weeks after being accepted
▪ Formal publication: within 1-2 months after being accepted.
Note: Articles reviewed directly by editors are excluded.
8. Author Appeals
Author may appeal an editorial decision by sending an email to the editorial office. The appeal must contain detailed reasons/responses or rebuttals to the review comments and the editorial comments. The appeal and related material and/or information will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for judgement and for decision on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend acceptance, revision, rejection, or referring to additional peer reviewers. The editorial decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed.
Publication Frequency
Uro-Technology Journal is a quarterly journal.
Open Access Policy
All manuscripts submitted to Uro-Technology Journal are assumed to be submitted under the Open Access publishing model. All articles published are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication, without subscription charges or registration barriers. There is no charge any fees after the paper is accepted for publication.