If referees have any potential conflicts of interest, they should report it to the editor before agreeing to review the submission. The Grand Journal of Urology asks reviewers to handle manuscripts with confidence. Articles should not be used or shared in any way until they are published. The Grand Journal of Urology follows the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected referee misconduct. For "Fundamental principles to be followed by peer-reviewers" and "Expectations from reviewers," please refer to the COPE Code of ethics for reviewers.

Referees should find the answers to the following questions for a systematic review:

1. Are the references cited within the text?
2. Does the study have ethical committee approval?
3. Is the article suitable in terms of the English language?
4. Does the abstract contain outlines of the text?
5. Is the structure of the text suitable?
6. Are the references adequate or related to the topic?
7. Are all of the references necessary?
8. Does the text require shortening?
9. Is the article related directly with aims of the journal?
10. Does the topic of the text give an insight to the study?
11. Is it appropriate statistical methods have been preferable?
12. Is the experimental research dedicated to ethical rules?
13. Are the diagrams and tables adequate?
14. Is the discussion satisfactory?