Fan Y, Wang SN, Jiang B, Li YY, Zhu CY, Liao XH, Zhang FS, Wang YK. Automatic recognition of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in pathological biopsy images of the gastric mucosa. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(32): 120382 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.120382]
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
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the editorial team and anonymous reviewers for their rigorous, fair and insightful peer review report. Every comment raised by the reviewers is highly pertinent and of great academic value. Through responding to the review questions, I supplemented missing experimental evidence, adjusted the discussion framework, updated relevant latest references, and corrected several ambiguous descriptions and insufficient data explanations in the original manuscript. The objective feedback effectively identified the deficiencies of my research and guided me to strengthen the reliability and innovation of this work. The whole peer review process brings tremendous improvements to my manuscript, and I benefit a lot from this revision experience.