Author: Dr. Sam Ward, MD, FEBU, FECSM, FGPS Published: September 2026 Last medically reviewed: September 2026

Joining the Reviewer Board of EMJ Urology

Every guideline a doctor follows, every drug approved for use, every “new” treatment that reaches a clinic, has passed through a process that almost no patient ever sees: peer review. It happens before a study is published, often years before a treatment reaches an examination room, and it rarely gets talked about outside academic circles.

I was recently invited to join the Reviewer Board of EMJ Urology, the peer-reviewed journal published by the European Medical Journal group. It’s a good moment to explain what that role actually involves, and why peer review deserves more attention than it usually gets, especially in a field like urology and andrology, where new devices, new energy-based therapies and new “regenerative” treatments arrive at a steady pace.

What peer review actually is

When researchers submit a study to a medical journal, it does not go straight to print. Before publication, the manuscript is sent to independent specialists in the same field, reviewers who were not involved in the research, who read it closely and assess it on several fronts:

• Is the methodology sound? Was the study designed in a way that can actually answer the question it asks?
• Do the results support the conclusions? A common failure point is a paper that overstates what its own data shows.
• Is the statistical analysis appropriate for the sample size and study design?
• Are the risks, limitations and conflicts of interest disclosed clearly?
• Does the work add something meaningful to what is already known, or does it duplicate existing evidence without acknowledging it?

Reviewers send their assessment back to the journal’s editors, who decide whether the paper is accepted, rejected, or sent back to the authors for revision. Often a manuscript goes through several rounds of this before it is considered ready. None of this is paid work. It is done by clinicians and researchers, on top of their own clinical and academic responsibilities, because the integrity of the published literature depends on it.

Why this matters more in a fast-moving field

Urology and andrology sit at an interesting intersection. On one hand, they are grounded in long-established surgical and medical practice. On the other, they are fields where new technology arrives constantly: shockwave devices, platelet-rich plasma protocols, traction therapies, robotic techniques, digital health tools. Each of these typically starts with a small pilot study, promising results, and a wave of enthusiasm, sometimes from clinicians, often from industry.

The distance between “a pilot study showed promising results” and “this is a proven, guideline-supported treatment” is exactly where peer review does its work. A well-designed randomised controlled trial with a plausible mechanism and consistent replication is a different thing from a small, uncontrolled case series with a strong marketing narrative attached. Peer review is one of the main mechanisms that keeps that distinction visible in the published record, before it reaches clinical guidelines, before it reaches patients.

This is also why, when I discuss emerging treatments with patients, I try to be explicit about where something sits on that spectrum: established and guideline-supported, moderately supported by evidence, or still emerging and investigational. That distinction exists because of work done, largely invisibly, by reviewers.

What the role involves

As a member of the EMJ Urology Reviewer Board, I will be assessing submitted manuscripts within my areas of clinical focus, male sexual health, erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, penile prosthetic surgery and reconstructive andrology, evaluating whether the science holds up before it reaches print. It sits alongside the peer-review contributions I already make as part of my role with the European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM), and it reflects the same underlying principle: evidence should be tested rigorously before it changes how patients are treated.

The bigger picture

Patients rarely see any of this. They see a headline, a device advertised online, or a treatment a friend recommends. What they don’t see is the layer of scrutiny, or the absence of it, that separates a therapy with genuine evidence behind it from one that simply has good marketing. Part of the reason I engage with peer review, guideline work and scientific publishing is that this scrutiny is what ultimately protects patients from treatments that promise more than the evidence supports.

It is slow, unglamorous work. It is also one of the more meaningful ways a clinician can contribute to a field beyond their own consultation room.

This article reflects general professional information and does not constitute individual medical advice. For questions about a specific treatment or condition, please consult your physician.