Peer Review

Peer review process is a crucially important procedure to guarantee the academic quality of the journal. It is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. Therefore, peer reviewers are sincerely acknowledged and respected.


Generally, the peer review process can be single-blind, double-blind, open or transparent. For this journal we main use the former 2 modes: single-blind or double blind.

A qualified peer reviewer should send his/her feedback (even decline to review due to some reasons) as per the time frame of the journal. All peer reviewers must maintain a strict and perpetual confidentiality for the content of all manuscripts under their review and for any related correspondences with the journal and/or the journal editorial team. Reviewers must not share any part of the manuscript with a third party or discuss its content with the authors of the manuscript or any other person. Reviewers must not plagiarize or cite any of the contents of a manuscript before the manuscript has been formally published. Reviewers will decline participation in the peer review process for any manuscript if a conflict of interest exists, including interests related to the manuscript’s authors, personal interests, or academic or economic interests. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the peer review process, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Office immediately.


The importance of the research and the significance of the research findings; (2) The novelty and innovative nature of the research; (3) The quality of the manuscript’s presentation and readability; (4) The ethics-related aspects of the research; (5) If the research is reasonably designed and supported; (6) Language evaluation: if the article should be re-polished before publication.


Title: (1) Do the main and short titles accurately reflect the major topic and content of the study?

Abstract: (1) Does the abstract provide a clear delineation between the research background, objectives, materials and methods, results (including important data), and conclusions?

(2) Does the abstract present the innovative and significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods, results (including important data), and conclusions?

Materials and Methods: (1) Are the materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are presented in the preceding sections? For example: Is the sample size defined? Is the study type and design defined (e.g. multicenter case-control study)? Are all sample subsets detailed (i.e. samples with special features, such as those from different cells or tissues or patients with distinguishing conditions)?

(2) Are the methods advanced and/or applied in an innovative way?

(3) Are sufficiently detailed descriptions provided for modified or novel methods used in the study, which will allow other investigators to reproduce or validate the study?

(4) Is the study design and use of controls rational and reliable?

(5) Are the statistical methods used appropriate?

Results: (1) Do the results provide sufficient experimental evidence or data to draw firm scientific conclusions?

(2) Are the sample size and statistical data ¾ especially graphical data that reflect the results ¾adequate for a clinical study?

Discussion: (1) Is the section well organized?

(2) Are the conclusions drawn appropriately supported by the literature? If not, are reasoned explanations provided?

(3) Does the section describe findings based upon systematic theoretical analyses of the results and provide valuable conclusions, while not merely repeating the data presented in the Results section?

References: (1) Are the references appropriate, relevant, and up-to-date?

Tables and Figures: (1) Do the tables and/or figures reflect the major findings of the study?

(2) Are the tables and/or figures designed to present the maximal amount of information in the most concise and clear manner?

Please contact us for more policy regarding peer review.



BLADDER is committed to providing authors with fast, rigorous, constructive and fair reviews.  BLADDER uses single blind peer review, where reviewers remain anonymous. The peer review process is made up of several stages.

Initial Quality Check

The journal staff performs an initial quality check to ensure minimum formatting requirements stated in Author Guidelines are met. At this stage, we also check for potential issues such as competing interest and incompliance with editorial policies and ethical standards.

Initial Assessment

Once the manuscripts have passed the quality check, they will be initially evaluated by the Editors-in-Chief or Deputy Editor to determine whether they should be sent out for review by external referees based on scientific merit and technical quality of the manuscripts.  If the manuscripts are out of scope or fall short of scientific standards set by BLADDER, they may be rejected outright without being reviewed any further.

External Review

Manuscripts that successfully go through the initial assessment will be assigned to a subject expert in our team of Editors to oversee the review process. At least three external referees will be invited and assigned the manuscript based on their expertise. At submission, authors are encouraged to suggest editorial members and at least five potential reviewers who are qualified to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript. Authors should not suggest colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves or recent collaborators. In the cover letter, authors may also identify individuals who should be excluded as a reviewer and give the reason for the exclusion. External peer reviewers typically have 14 days to submit their reviews.

Submissions determined not to be reviewed by editors will be returned to authors and will in general not be considered again unless substantial revision has been made. Resubmitted papers will be considered as a new submission. For peer-reviewed papers, a decision of either acceptance, acceptance after revision, reconsideration after revision, or rejection will be made by editors based on the evaluation of referees.  The handling editor sends a decision email to the corresponding author along with reviewers’ comments.


If a manuscript has been determined to be acceptable pending major revision, the authors will have 30 days to revise their manuscript unless extension request is granted by the editor.


It is typical that multiple rounds of reviews may be needed for authors to address concerns raised by reviewers. When all issues have been satisfactorily addressed, the handling editor will issue an editorial accept and the manuscript is ready to move on to production phase.

Pre-submission inquiries are welcome but not required if authors would like to find out if their paper is suitable for publication in Bladder before submitting a full manuscript for peer review.