Editor
Prof.Dr.Ramazan Gökhan ATIŞ / Istanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9065-6104

Assistant Editor
Prof.Dr.Şenol ADANUR / Ataturk University, Faculty of Medicine, Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Erzurum, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0859-1741

Assistant Editor
Prof.Dr.Tevfik AKTOZ / Trakya University, Health Research and Training Hospital, Department of Urology, Edirne, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1758-9996

Assistant Editor
Assoc.Prof.Mert Ali KARADAĞ / Kayseri City Hospital, Department of Urology, Kayseri, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2454-8850

Assistant Editor
Assoc.Prof.Hüseyin Cihan DEMIREL / İstanbul Aydın University Health Practice and Research Center, Medical Park Florya Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7378-5599

Biostatistical Editors
Assoc.Prof.Aytaç AKÇAY / Ankara University, Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Biostatistic (Veterinary), Ankara, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6263-5181

Assoc.Prof. Mithat EKŞİ / Istanbul S.B.U. Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk SUAM Bakırköy / Istanbul, Türkiye
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1490-3756

Language Editor
Asst.Prof.Meftun ÇULPAN / Istanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-1192

Copy Editor
Assoc.Prof. Mehmet Çağlar ÇAKICI, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Göztepe Prof.Dr.Süleyman Yalçın City Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0176-5887

Job Description

Editorial Board Members

Review submitted manuscripts.
Advise on journal policy and scope.
Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.
Attract new authors and submissions.
Assist the editor(s) in decision making over issues such as plagiarism claims and submissions where reviewers can’t agree on a decision.

Editor

Editor have full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
To decide which articles will be edited for publication.
To review and edit articles, provide comments and suggest titles to improve the text.
To work to ensure and maintain the journal’s execution.
To have the referees designate the evaluation process of the articles.
Examine the layout of the drafts of the articles in writing and review.
To make suggestions for editing and rewriting articles, some of which may be rejected or returned to the author for review.
Checking that the last checks and arrangements have been made before printing.

Responsibilities of the Associate Editor

To maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and competence.
Supervise the editing of articles for each issue in accordance with the rules of scientific writing and layout.
Collobrate with the Editors-in-Chief to identify and recruit new Editors and Editorial Board members for the journal.
Make editorial decisions with appropriate speed and communicate clearly and constructively.
Monitor journal and competitor statistics in accordance with established best practice, prepare data reports and draft monitoring reports for internal and external reporting.
Promote the journal at conferences and meetings.
Avoidance of real or perceived conflict of interest situations.
Suggest changes to improve the quality of the journal’s content.
Systematically evaluating review reports, making crucial decisions on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
Deciding whether the authors have addressed the reviewers’ concerns and ensuring final editing of the manuscript before approval.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

There should be no disclosure or discussion of the material under review with anyone outside the review process unless this is necessary and has the approval of the editor.
Reviewers’ comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the reviewed material, constructively identify negative aspects, and suggest improvements.
Reviewers are responsible for identifying strengths and providing constructive comments to help the author address weaknesses.
Reviewers who recognise that their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript is limited have a responsibility to make the editor aware of their level of competence. Reviewers do not need to be experts in every aspect of the content of an article, but should only agree to review a manuscript if they have sufficient expertise to be able to provide an authoritative assessment. A reviewer who does not have the necessary expertise runs the risk of recommending the acceptance of a submission with significant flaws, or the rejection of a valuable manuscript. The reviewer should decline to review in such cases.
Reviewers’ comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and unbiased assessment of the facts, free from personal or professional bias. All reviewer comments should be based solely on the scientific merit, originality and quality of the manuscript and its relevance to the scope and mission of the journal. Potential reviewers who are concerned about a significant conflict of interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns with the Editor.
If reviewers have any interests that may interfere with their ability to provide an impartial review, they should decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how it can best be managed.
Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, following instructions to complete a review, and submitting it on time. The review process is undermined by failure to do so. Every effort should be made to ensure that the review is completed within the requested time period. If it is impossible to meet the review deadline, the reviewer should immediately reject the review or ask if an arrangement can be made to meet the deadline.