Peer Review Process

Authorship criteria, Contribution, and Authorship statement

Any author should have participated significantly and sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for the whole content. According to the guidelines of ICMJE, authorship credit should be based only on (a) significant contributions to conception and design; or acquisition of data; or interpretation and analysis of data, and (b) drafting the manuscript or revising it critically, and (c) final approval of the version to get published. Conditions a, b and c must all be met.

All contributing authors must complete and submit an Authorship Statement Form, Financial and Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form is once submitting a manuscript to the Translational Research in Urology Journal. In addition, the corresponding author is required to identify all authors’ contributions to the work described in the manuscript. All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g., data collection, analysis, writing, or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be mentioned along with their specific contributions in the Acknowledgments Section of the manuscript. All contributing authors must verify that the manuscript represents authentic and valid work and that neither this manuscript nor one with significantly similar content under their authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.


Role of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author on behalf of all contributing authors will serve as the primary correspondent with the Translational Research in Urology editorial office during the submission and peer-reviewing process. The corresponding author will check the proof edition if the manuscript is accepted for publication. The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that the Acknowledgements Section of the article is complete.


Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures

The conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has personal or financial relationships that influence (bias) inappropriately his/her action (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All contributing authors will be required to complete and submit Transresurology Authorship Statement, Financial and Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form, and Copyright Transfer. In this form, authors will disclose all potential conflicts of interest, including relevant financial activities, interests, relationships, and affiliations (other than those affiliations mentioned on the title page of the manuscript).


Funding/ Support and Role of Sponsor

All contributing authors will be required to complete and disclose all funding or financial support received in the Authorship Form (see Sample Authorship Form). All funding, material, or financial support for the work should be clearly and completely described in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript. The role of funding organization or sponsor in each of the following stages of the research should be clearly defined: “design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; preparation, editing or approval of the work; and confirm to publish the manuscript”.


Duplicate/ Previous Publication or Submission

Manuscripts are assumed not to be published previously in print or electronic versions and are not under consideration by another publication. Copies of related or possibly duplicated materials (including those containing significantly similar content or using the same data) that have been published previously or are under consideration for another publication must be provided at the time of online submission.

For more information on ethical issues, please read the following COPE guidelines that might be helpful for authors as well as editors.


Editorial Review and Publication

Translational Research in Urology’s authors will be sent notifications of the manuscript’s receipt and editorial decisions by email. During the peer-reviewing process, authors can check the status of their manuscripts via the Online Manuscript Submission System.

All submissions to the Translational Research in Urology go through a double-blind peer-review process to ensure content quality. At the first stage, a technical editor checks the format and style of the manuscript to assure its compatibility with the Translational Research in Urology’s guide for authors. If authors have not considered the guides, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for compatibility. The manuscript will be then assigned to section editors, based on the subject area and editor-in-chief decision, for a fast pre-review screening within 5 days. Section editors check the manuscript for content quality (with a focus on methodology, originality, and contribution to knowledge and practice) and the use of English. The decision at this stage is fast reject, revise and re-submit, or assign to external reviewers for a detailed evaluation process. The selection of external reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Every attempt is made at the Translational Research in Urology to obtain at least 2-3 strong reviews on each manuscript. Editor-in-Chief receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with a decision letter to the corresponding author.

Translational Research in Urology adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures the high quality of published articles.

Translational Research in Urology’s reviewers is required to declare their conflict of interest and maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review.

As Translational Research in Urology is a rapid response journal, the review process takes between 1 to 2 months.


Translational Research in Urology decision letter determines the status of manuscript in four ways:

1. Acceptance: the manuscript could be published electronically. This process lasts between one to two weeks. Before electronic publication, the corresponding author should verify a proof copy of the paper. Translational Research in Urology supports the Advance Access initiative by which papers that have been copyedited and typeset but not yet paginated for inclusion in an issue of the journal are appeared online upon finishing with the review process. Advance accessed papers will be in a queue to be published in one of Translational Research in Urology’s upcoming issues.

2. Minor Revision: authors will receive comments on their manuscript and will be asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted color) beside a response to the reviewer file in which they need to respond to every comment of reviewer one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted in 5 weeks after the decision letter.

3. Major Revision: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Here also authors are asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted color) beside a response to the reviewer file in which they need to respond to every comment of the reviewer one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted in 5 weeks after the decision letter.

Revisions should be submitted in 7 weeks after the decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a re-submission process.

4. Rejection: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chances for them for publication in other journals. 

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to the Version of Record. This will be done after careful consideration by the Editor to ensure any necessary changes are made following guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice which will be permanently linked to the original article so that readers will be fully informed of any necessary changes. This can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, and in rare circumstances a Removal. The purpose of this mechanism of making changes that are permanent and transparent is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. All corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are free to access at the point of publication.



Accepted manuscripts will be edited according to the Translational Research in Urology’s Guide for Authors (this does not include language editing) and returned to the corresponding author for final approval. All contributing authors are responsible for all statements made in their manuscript during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.