Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology – Instructions For Author

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.