Actionable Feedback
Use specific, verifiable guidance so authors can implement revisions efficiently.
Editorial Operations Guidance
Editors Guidelines
Editors Guidelines
Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology
Apply consistent editorial standards that strengthen manuscript quality, decision fairness, and publication integrity.
45%APC Savings
ClinicalResearch Reach
FastEditorial Routing
Editorial Role
Guidelines for Handling Manuscripts in JMSU
Editors are expected to deliver fair, timely, and evidence-based decisions aligned with journal policy.
Editorial evaluation should prioritize methodological validity, clinical relevance, and reporting transparency over stylistic preference.
Decision quality improves when editors distinguish critical scientific concerns from secondary presentation refinements.
Decision Practice
Operational Standards for Editorial Recommendations
Consistent editorial behavior improves author trust and peer review effectiveness.
- Confirm scope fit and integrity readiness before assigning external reviewers.
- Select reviewers based on domain and methods expertise, avoiding conflict risks.
- Provide clear decision letters with prioritized revision requirements.
- Escalate ethics or integrity concerns with specific documented evidence.
- Track unresolved reviewer conflicts and adjudicate with policy consistency.
- Maintain turnaround discipline while preserving review quality standards.
Communication Quality
How Editors Should Engage Authors and Reviewers
Professional and precise communication is an essential editorial competency.
Balanced Judgment
Integrate reviewer input with independent editorial appraisal and policy criteria.
Documented Rationale
Capture key decision reasons to support governance traceability and future quality review.
Fair Process
Apply standards consistently across manuscript types and author backgrounds.
Editors should prioritize decision-critical revisions and separate core issues from stylistic refinements.
Recommendation language should be specific so authors can respond efficiently and accurately.
Documentation of major editorial decisions supports quality assurance and governance traceability.
Targeted clarification requests are often better than broad, unfocused revision demands.
Integrity concerns should be escalated with precise supporting evidence and policy references.
Editors should prioritize decision-critical revisions and separate core issues from stylistic refinements.
Recommendation language should be specific so authors can respond efficiently and accurately.
Documentation of major editorial decisions supports quality assurance and governance traceability.
Targeted clarification requests are often better than broad, unfocused revision demands.
Integrity concerns should be escalated with precise supporting evidence and policy references.
Editors should prioritize decision-critical revisions and separate core issues from stylistic refinements.
Recommendation language should be specific so authors can respond efficiently and accurately.
Documentation of major editorial decisions supports quality assurance and governance traceability.
Join the JMSU Editorial Workflow
Use these guidelines to support rigorous review management and transparent decision communication.
Editorial office: [email protected]
