BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Sachdeva S, Sirohi N, Mandal K, Bansal D, Vaithiyam V, Dalal A, Goyal S, Sakhuja P. Esophageal stricture due to amyloidosis in plasma cell dyscrasia: A case report and review of literature. World J Clin Cases 2026; 14(28): 127546 [DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.127546]
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
We sincerely thank the editorial team for ensuring a smooth and efficient manuscript processing experience. The constructive comments and suggestions provided by the Editor and reviewers were highly valuable and helped us substantially improve the quality of the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments encouraged us to strengthen several important aspects of the manuscript, including the presentation of relevant histological images and a more comprehensive review of the literature. The critical comments generated through the AI-assisted manuscript review system were also helpful in identifying key areas that required further clarification, improvement, and revision. Overall, we found the entire publication process to be smooth, efficient, and highly constructive. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Editor, reviewers, and editorial team in helping us improve the manuscript and bring it to its final form.