Raveendran AV, Kesavadev J, Saboo B, George S. Obstructive sleep apnea: Proposed scoring system. World J Methodol 2026; 16(2): 114192 [PMID: 42058798 DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i2.114192]
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
fantastic journey with world journal of methodology team. every stage was useful to improve the quality of the manuscript and the team is really supportive. thank you very much.
The journal’s publication process was highly professional, efficient, and transparent. Communication from the editorial office was prompt and supportive throughout every stage. Peer review was constructive and timely, and the manuscript handling was remarkably smooth. We sincerely appreciate the editorial team’s dedication to maintaining high academic standards.