Annals of Urologic Oncology

Submit Manuscript

Peer Review


Annals of Urologic Oncology (AUO) subjects submit research papers that meet the highest standards of international peer review:

A. Each research article is reviewed by at least two qualified experts.

B. The journals’ Co-Editors-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided.

C. Editorial Board Members assist Co-Editors-in-Chief in making decisions about specific articles.

D. Editorial Board Members provide insights, advice, and guidance to the Co-Editors-in-Chief.

E. Administrative support for the judging process is provided by the Academic Editors and the Executive Editor. They maintain the integrity of peer review while providing fast turnaround and maximum efficiency for all stakeholders, including authors, reviewers and editors.

F. The journal uses a single-blind peer review process. We do not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers unless reviewers voluntarily sign their reviews to the authors. We expect referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and thereafter.

G. AUO fully complies with the COPE Journal Editorial Code of Conduct and best practices, ensuring that our editors are accountable for all content published in our journals. Our readers will always know how research is funded and how our relationship with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be affected by COPE's recommendations.


Reviewers primarily assess the originality, validity, and importance of manuscripts and provide detailed, evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors make publication decisions (accept, revise, or reject) and to help authors make improvements.

In the course of the review, the following points will be considered:

1. Is the manuscript suitable for AUO? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the reader. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

2. Are the results and conclusions fully supported?

Reviewers should highlight whether the data is incomplete, inadequate, or contains errors, as the data may not yield results and therefore no conclusions can be drawn.

3. Are there any statistical problems?

Statistical reviewers need to ensure that there are no deficiencies or errors in statistical methods and analysis.

4. Keep it secret

Reviewers should respect and abide by the confidentiality of the manuscript.

For information about our reviewer Conflict of Interest Policy, please click here.

5. Special Issues

Special Issues (SIs) are collections of papers on a topic of special interest, organized and led by experts on that subject who serve as Guest Editor of the Special Issue. All submitted papers follow the same peer review process as regular papers. All papers will be submitted through the journal's online submission system, and Guest Editors and invited authors must strictly adhere to the Editorial Policies of all journals.