AlNuaimi A, Nair VA, Al-Khayyal N, Suliman A, Bou Malhab LJ, Hamoudi R, Hamad M, Talaat IM, Abdel-Rahman WM. Overexpression of low-molecular-weight caldesmon is associated with aggressive phenotypes and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer cells. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(5): 116662 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v17.i5.116662]
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?
No
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 publication process proceeded smoothly and efficiently from submission to final publication. The journal’s publication requirements and standards clearly reflected its commitment to maintaining the high quality and scientific integrity of the published articles.
The peer-review process was conducted in a timely and professional manner. The reviewers’ comments and recommendations were constructive, valuable, and manageable, which greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
In addition, the editors were highly cooperative, responsive, and supportive throughout the review and publication process. Their professionalism and effective communication made the overall experience positive and encouraging.
Thank you very much for your efforts and support.