Peer Review Process
Mathews Open Access Journals follows double blind peer review process. In this we do not reveal author names, affiliations to the reviewer and vice versa. We adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), code of conduct, and best practice guidelines (http://publicationethics.org). We strive to ensure that the peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript for publication in the journal are based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to remit of the journal. The process also involves strictly no plagiarism or fabrication of the data and parallel submissions.
Responsibilities
Being a reviewer you are accountable to take the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality of ideas that have been presented in the papers assigned to review. Focus your evaluation on merits and demerits of the article; assess the correctness, accuracy, clarity, and innovation of the research. Never reveal the assigned paper's results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.
The reviewers are given ample time for the review and submission of comments to the editorial office. Reviewers’ evaluations play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.
Ethical Issues
Published : 17th April 2024
Authors : Yassine Daghdagh, El Mostapha Abdi, Mahmoud Alafifi*, Anas Tmiri, Mouad Elbade, Amine Moataz, Mohamed Dakir, Adil Debbagh, Rachid Aboutaieb
Citation : Al-Affifi M, et al. (2024). Erectile Dysfunction: Epidemiological and Clinical Case Series Profile at the Ibn Rochd University Hospital in Casablanca. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 6(1):18.
Published : 16th April 2024
Authors : Mahmoud Alafifi*, Abderrahmane Doumer, Hamza Ait Mahanna, Reda Safwate, Adil Kbiro, Amine Moataz, Mohamed Dakir, Adil Debbagh, Rachid Aboutaieb
Citation : Al-Affifi M, et al. (2024). Evaluating Renal Tumors: A Comprehensive Review of Risk Factors, Clinical Presentations, and Prognostic Histology in 80 Patients. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 6(1):17.
Published : 01st April 2024
Authors : Mahmoud Alafifi*, Abderrahmane Doumer, Reda Safwate, Hamza Ait Mahanna, Adil Kbiro, Amine Moataz, Mohamed Dakir, Adil Debbagh, Rachid Aboutaieb
Citation : Al-Affifi M, et al. (2024). Surgical Repair of Penile Fractures: Outcomes of a Prospective Mono-Centric Case Series Study. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 6(1):16.
Published : 15th March 2024
Authors : Mahmoud Al-Affifi*, Yassine Larrache, Saleh Nedjim, Amine Moataz, Mohammed Dakir, Adil Debbagh, Rachid Aboutaieb
Citation : Al-Affifi M, et al. (2024). Unveiling Nosocomial Urinary Tract Infections: Insights from the University Hospital of Casablanca's Urology Department. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 6(1):15.
Published : 20th March 2023
Authors : Enis Mert Yorulmaz1,*, Serkan Özcan2, Sacit Nuri Görgel2, Osman Köse2, Yiğit Akın2
Citation : Yorulmaz EM. (2023). The Role of Preoperative CONUT Score in Prognosis in Patients With Radical Cystectomy. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 5(1):14.
Published : 15th March 2023
Author : Sami A Abbas*
Citation : Abbas SA. (2023). Merits of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Large and/or Complex Renal Stones “Retrospective Study”. Mathews J Urol Nephrol. 5(1):13.