Aim and Scope

Focus & Scope of the Journal  is providing of the latest achievements of national and foreign medicine in fields of general urology, andrology, oncological urology, urological infections, neurourology, urogynecology, paediatric urology and transplantology.

Objectives of the Journal: to publish quality research articles that match international standards of scientific publications; to raise the level of peer-reviewing and editing of papers submitted for publication; to provide published articles the widest possible distribution in the scientific community; to extend the opportunities of distribution and indexing of scientific papers in various leading national and foreign data bases.

The Journal accepts materials from specialists and experts in the field of urology and related specialties, graduate students, applicants, doctoral students from worldwide in Russian and English.

Section Policies

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSION PAGE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL CASES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY OF UROLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LECTURES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

STATEMENTS OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL EVENTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXCHANGE OF PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

The articles are publishing as whole issues with a fixed table of contents. Publication frequency is four issues per year.

Open Access Policy

The Journal provides direct open access to its content, based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to an increase in global knowledge sharing.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition. It means that manuscripts have free availability on the journal website, permitting any users to search, read, download, copy, distribute, print or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

2. Peer-review of articles are carried out by members of Editorial Board and editorial council and by invited reviewers who are leading specialists of Russia and other countries in scientific area of "Medical Sciences". All reviewers have a scientific degree and extensive scientific experience in the research area stated in the article, and published manuscripts on the direction of the reviewed article over the last 3 years. The editor-in-chief decides on the choice of one or another reviewer for the examination of the article.

3. The estimated review period is 8 to 12 weeks. The Editorial Board oversees this time frame, but it can be extended at the reviewer's request.

4. The editorial board decides on the number of reviews required. Usually, two reviews are enough for the editorial board to make a publication decision. In cases when the article is related to several sciences or scientific fields, more than two reviewers are appointed. Moreover, the editor-in-chief can appoint an additional reviewer after receiving the initial review.

5. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an apparent conflict of interest affecting on the perception and interpretation of manuscript materials. The reviewer makes recommendations on the preparedness of the article based on the results of its consideration (the reviewer justifies each decision):

• article is recommended for publication in its present form
• article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
• article needs additional reviewing by other expert;
• article cannot be published in the journal.

6. If the review contains recommendations for articles` correction and refinement the Editorial Board sends the author of the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing the new version of the article, or arguments (partially or completely) to refute them. Modification of article should not take more than two weeks from the date of sending the electronic message to the authors of the need to make changes. The article modified by author are re-routed for second review.

7. In case of refusal of the manuscript improvements, the authors must notify the Editorial Board of their rejection to publish the article in writing or orally. The Editorial Board reserve the right to remove an article from the register if the authors do not return the revised version after 14 days from the date of the review, even if there is no information from the authors with the refusal to finalize the article. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notice on the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.

8. If the author and the reviewers appeared relatively insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to submit the manuscript for additional review. In case of conflict situations, the Editor-in-chief makes the final decision taking into account the opinions of the Deputy Editor-in-chief and members of the Editorial Board. 

9. The editor-in-chief and his deputies decide not to publish the manuscript collegially, in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. A message about a reasoned refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.

10. The presence of positive reviews is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision for publication is accepted by the Editor-in-chief, Deputy editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board (not <50%).

11. After deciding regarding admission of an article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and indicate of the date of publication.

12. Originals reviews are stored in the journal archive during 3 years.

13. A review upon request is sent to the author by addressing to the e-mail provided by the author, as well as, upon request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, or at the request of the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Indexation

Articles in «Vestnik Urologii» are indexed by several systems:

• Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
• Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
• Base
• Cyberleninka
• Dimensions
• DOAJ
• EDS
• SOCIONET
• WorldCat
• AcademicKeys
• University of Cambridge
• rnmj.ru
• Open Archives
• Research Bible
• ROAD
• Ulrich's
• Research4life
• Lens
• OpenAIRE

Publishing Ethics

The Editorial Board of the journal complies with the ethical standards approved by the international scientific community. The Editorial Board uses the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: «Vestnik Urologii»

1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned «Vestnik Urologii»  is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the «Vestnik Urologii» journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of «Vestnik Urologii» must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3.    Duties of Reviewers

3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of «Vestnik Urologii» and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1.Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3.Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6.Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «Vestnik Urologii» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «Vestnik Urologii» in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support «Vestnik Urologii» journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/). 

Founder

Rostov State Medical University [Official full name: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education «Rostov State Medical University» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (FSBEI HE RostSMU MOH Russia)]

Address: 29 Nakhichevansky Lane, 344022, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation

Tel.: +7(863) 250-42-00

Fax: +7 (863) 201-43-90

e-mail: okt@rostgmu.ru

website: www.rostgmu.ru

Author Fees

Publication in Journal "Vestnik Urologii" is free of charge for all the authors.

The Journal does not have any article processing, submission and printing charges (APC).

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Conflicts of interest in publishing can be defined as conditions in which an individual hold conflicting or competing interests that could bias editorial decisions. Conflicts of interest may be only potential or perceived, or they may be factual. Personal, political, financial, academic, or religious considerations can affect objectivity in numerous ways.

Public trust in the peer-review process and the credibility of published articles depends in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the Journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Individual Authors’ Commitments

When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page that follows the title page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript (The ICMJE Conflict of Interest form). Authors should identify individuals who provide writing or other assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.

Investigators must disclose potential conflicts to study participants and should state in the manuscript whether they have done so.

Editors also need to decide whether to publish information disclosed by authors about potential conflicts. If doubt exists, it is best to err on the side of publication.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Project Support

Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to all the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases. Some journals, therefore, choose to include information in the Methods section about the sponsor’s involvement.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”Editors should review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors’ right to publish.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Commitments of Editors, Journal Staff, or Reviewers

Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest - for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential, usually professional, conflicts of interest. When possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns; that information is important to editors in deciding whether to honor such requests.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist, and the reviewer has failed to disclose them, or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of journal staff.

Borrowing and Plagiarism

Publication of manuscripts containing plagiarism of text, ideas, and / or data is excluded. Authors should submit in Editorial Board fully original articles. References to the results of other authors’ manuscripts must be accompanied by links to the relevant sources. Text previously published should be framed as direct speech in quotation marks with the obligatory indication of the source in case of its citing.

When considering an article, the journal Editors can check the content using the «Antiplagiat» software system to search for exact matches and incorrect borrowings. In case of unauthorized borrowed text and graphic elements, low originality of the text, the journal Editors have the right to require authors to correct the manuscript or refuse to publish it.

In case of multiple unauthorized borrowings are discovered, the Editors act in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Articles containing plagiarism, by the Journal`s Editorial Board decision may be revoked even after publication.

Preprint & Postprint Policy

Preprint (signal instance, in the context of Open Access) is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers and it is intended for preliminary acquaintance of the readership with research materials.*

Postprint (peer-reviewed instance, the final version of an academic article or other publication) is article after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As general terms, this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.*

*- glossary (by SHERPA, used with rev. and adds.)

Authors must confirm that this work was not published or was not accepted for publication in another scientific journal before submitting the article to the journal Editors.

Authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites, not related to other publishers, prior to acceptance to publication in «Vestnik Urologii».

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the article`s data has not been previously published or accepted in print at other editions.

The journal Editors recommends authors to use the link (full URL) to the article on journal's website is used after a manuscript has been published in «Vestnik Urologii» in case of the article has been shared on personal or public websites.

CrossMark

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal "Vestnik Urologii" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

Article retraction

In accordance with the rules of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the grounds for retracting an article are:

• detection of plagiarism in the manuscript;
• detection of falsifications in the manuscript (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
• discovery in the manuscript of serious errors that cast doubt on its scientific value;
• incorrect composition of authors (authors who have made a significant contribution are excluded; persons who do not meet the authorship criteria are included);
• duplication of an article in several journals;
• republishing the article without the consent of the author(s);
• non-disclosure of conflicts of interest and other violations of publication ethics;
• failure of the manuscript to pass the review procedure.

Article retraction can be initiated by the editorial board, author(s), organization, and individual.

After deciding to withdraw the article, the editors inform the authors, indicating the reason for the retraction and its date. The article screened on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue but is marked "Retracted" with the date of retraction (the mark is placed over the text of the article and in the table of contents of the issue), and a message about the retraction is placed in the news section of the site. The editor-in-chief also submits information about the retraction of an article to all network libraries and databases where the journal is indexed.