Patel V, Zameer R, Kumar B, Das M. Adjunctive pharmacologic therapies for diuretic resistance in acute decompensated heart failure: Systematic review of randomized trials. World J Meta-Anal 2026; 14(1): 118496 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v14.i1.118496]
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?
No
2 Are you satisfied with the peer review report?
No
3 Are you satisfied with the editing quality of the article?
No
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?
No
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?
No
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?
No
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 journal’s submission and editorial workflow was difficult to navigate and unnecessarily time-consuming. The overall processing timeline appeared excessively prolonged, with limited efficiency in communication and manuscript handling. A particularly concerning aspect of the process was being presented with the option to transfer the manuscript to another journal during review, with the implication that refusal could result in rejection, which created an uncomfortable experience for authors. Additionally, the formatting requirements felt outdated and overly rigid, requiring authors to complete several unnecessary administrative and formatting steps that added complexity without clearly improving the scientific review process. Overall, while the journal may maintain academic standards, the submission experience itself was cumbersome and could benefit significantly from modernization, clearer workflows, and a more author-friendly review system.