How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers:

Reviewer template and Publication guidelines

Jim CattoAssociate Editor European Urology

How to Write a Manuscript and Get It Published in European Urology

Reviewer template and Publication guidelines

The manuscript

The author The reviewer

1. The manuscript

Content:• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Report Type • Manuscript Structure• Checklists etc.

1. The manuscript

Content:• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Report Type • Manuscript Structure• Checklists etc.

Quality metrics:• Content• Strength of Message

2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer

a). Judge the work• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Level within the field• Interest to

readership…• Checklists etc.

2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer

a). Judge the work• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Level within the field• Interest to

readership…• Checklists etc.

b). Improve the work• Structured review

http://europeanurology.com/about-the-journal/reviewers

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Add enough to the published literature?

• What does it add?• Cite relevant

references to support your comments on originality

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Does this work matter?

• Will it help our readers to make better decisions and, if so, how? 

• Is a European Urology the right journal for it?

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Clearly defined: – Question or– Aims or – Objectives or– Hypothesis

• Is this appropriately answered?

Structured reviews• Design

– Appropriate– Adequate

• Participants: – Clearly described and

defined– Inclusion and exclusion

criteria described? – How representative are

of this category of patients?

• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Adequately described? • State main outcome

measure? • Reporting standards:

– RCTs – Systematic reviews– Observational studies– Health economics studies

• Checklist’s? • Ethics

– IRB/EC approval– Reviewer opinion

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Do they answer the question?

• Are the outcomes credible?

• Are the data well presented

• Justify and pay attention to the – Tables – Figures

• ? Supplementary data

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Are these warranted by the data

• Discussed in the light of previous evidence

• Is the message clearly stated?

Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science

– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/

Conclusion– References

• Up to date and relevant • Any glaring omissions?• Pertinent to European

Urology • ? Adherence to & role

of limited numbers

The Abstract

• Does it reflect the data?• Is it clear?• Does it serve purpose?• Does it stand alone or lead

into the paper?• Consistency

The Abstract is very important

Reporting guidelines• Used to standardize reporting of clinical studies• Aim to enhance quality and transparency of health

care research• We advocate their use for these reasons• But for you …. they are a wealth of helpful

information about what and how to write?• Manuscripts conforming to CONSORT are more

likely to be accepted

Reporting guidelines

http://www.equator-network.org/

Reporting guidelines

http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

Reporting guidelines

http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

CONSORT: For RCT’s, but also excellent general advice

STARD: For diagnostic studiesPRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta-

analysesSTROBE: EpidemiologyREMARK: Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies

Thank-you