How to Write a Manuscript and
Get It Published in European Urology
How your submission will be evaluated by
European Urology reviewers:
Reviewer template and Publication guidelines
Jim Catto
Associate Editor
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/Co
nclusion
– 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/Co
nclusion
– 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/Co
nclusion
– References
• Clearly defined:
–
–
–
–
Question or
Aims or
Objectives or
Hypothesis
• Is this appropriately
answered?
Structured reviews
• Originality
• Importance to readers
• Science
–
–
–
–
–
–
Defined question
Study design
Participants
Methods
Results
Interpretation/Disc/Conc
lusion
– References
• Design
– Appropriate
– Adequate
• Participants:
– Clearly described and
defined
– Inclusion and exclusion
criteria described?
– How representative are
of this category of
patients?
Structured reviews
• Originality
• Importance to readers
• Science
–
–
–
–
–
–
Defined question
Study design
Participants
Methods
Results
Interpretation/Disc/Co
nclusion
– 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/Co
nclusion
– 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/Co
nclusion
– 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
–
–
–
–
–
–
• Up to date and relevant
Defined question
• Any glaring omissions?
Study design
• Pertinent to European
Participants
Urology
Methods
Results
• ? Adherence to & role
Interpretation/Disc/Conc
of limited numbers
lusion
– References
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
CONSORT: For RCT’s, but also excellent
general advice
STARD: For diagnostic studies
PRISMA: For systematic reviews and metaanalyses
STROBE: Epidemiology
REMARK: Reporting recommendations for tumor
marker prognostic studies
http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/
Thank-you