Zhou XL, Chen F, Guo KB. Letter to the Editor: Reovirus as an immunomodulatory adjuvant in KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer - translational insights and future directions. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(6): 119152 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.119152]
Evaluation of a Journal’s Credibility by Authors
The purpose of an author’s evaluation of a journal’s credibility is to assess the degree of satisfaction with the manuscript editing and publishing process. This evaluation is for user’s reference only.
1 Are you satisfied with the online submission system?
Yes
2 Are you satisfied with the peer review report?
Yes
3 Are you satisfied with the editing quality of the article?
Yes
4 Are you satisfied with the article PDFs?
Yes
5 Are you satisfied with the online full-text article?
Yes
6 Are you satisfied with the prepared figures in the online full-text article?
Yes
7 Are you satisfied with the prepared tables in the online full-text article?
Yes
8 Are you satisfied with the published articles processes?
Yes
9 Are you satisfied with the requirement for providing academic rules and norms?
Yes
10 Are you satisfied with the academic misconduct detection report?
Yes
11 Are you satisfied with the period of publication?
Yes
12 Are you satisfied with the editing and publishing rules and norms?
Yes
Evaluation of a Journal’s Peer Review by Authors
The purpose of an author’s evaluation of a given journal’s peer review is to assess the degree of satisfaction with the peer review process. This evaluation is for user’s reference only.
1 Are you satisfied with the time spent for peer review?
Yes
2 Are you satisfied with the anonymous peer review process?
Yes
3 Is the peer review report of great help to your manuscript?
Yes
4 Do you think the peer review report for your manuscript is fair or objective?
Yes
Author‘s Comments
The peer-review process for our manuscript was conducted with high professional standards. The reviewers demonstrated expertise in the field of oncology and provided constructive, detailed comments that significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. The single-blind review process ensured objective evaluation. The editorial decision was fair and well-supported by the reviewers‘ assessments. The turnaround time for peer review was reasonable, and the entire process from submission to publication was efficiently managed.