Lin C, Song KR, Li QH, Nair GS, Cheng S, Kumar K. High-flow nasal cannula for hypoxia in the post-anesthetic recovery unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(2): 118285 [PMID: 42272891 DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i2.118285]
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 manuscript submission and tracking process through the F6Publishing system was intuitive, streamlined, and efficient from initial upload to final acceptance. We highly value the constructive, rigorous, and timely feedback provided by the peer reviewers, which significantly enhanced the overall quality and clarity of our systematic review. The editorial team maintained excellent communication throughout, providing prompt responses and professional guidance during the language editing and manuscript revision phases.