Becoming a reviewer 
Code of conduct
Conflicts of interest
Ethical responsibilities
The review process
How to write a reviewer report
Help using our peer review system

Becoming a reviewer 
If you want to become a reviewer of Asian Journal of Urology, please contact the editorial office (ajurology@smmu.edu.cn) to ask to be considered for the position, and provide an up-to-date CV or resume. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and experience.

Code of conduct

Our editorial office will consult the guidelines of Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and act accordingly. 

Conflicts of interest
In order to ensure fairness in the referee process, we try to avoid peer reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct competition, have a history of dispute with the authors, or have a financial interest in the outcome. Because it is not possible for the editors to know all possible biases, we ask peer reviewers to pay attention to anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.  
For further guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest during the peer review process, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. 

Ethical responsibilities
In addition to adhering to the “Code of conduct” and “Conflicts of interest” guidelines, reviewers have the following responsibilities.
Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed. Information acquired by a reviewer from such a paper is not available for disclosure or citation until the paper is published.
Destroy/erase the manuscript and inform the editor should they be unqualified to review the manuscript, or lack the time to review the manuscript, without undue delay.
To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion: Reviewers should not make personal criticism in their reviews.
To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: Specifically, reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship, if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To explain and support their judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments, and to provide reference to published work where appropriate.
To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by another journal.
To ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own research.
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data.
Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.
Not to use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

The review process
All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the science editor(s) for suitability for the review process. To save authors’ and reviewers’ time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria will be sent out for peer-review.
The points mentioned below will be considered by the science editor(s):
1) Suitability of the article for the journal’s scope
2) Impact and novelty of the work
3) The length of the article – does it reflect the level of scientific content and fit within any relevant page limits?
4) Whether the article type is appropriate
5) The title – does it reflect the content and contain relevant search terms for discoverability?
6) The abstract – is it self-contained without reference to the main text?
Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Based on their advice, the editorial board and Editor-in-Chief decide to:
Accept
The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-editing and proofreading).
Minor revisions
The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.
Major revision
The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.
Reject 
The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.