Huang XY, Zhao L, He H, Peng R, Xue H, Lai SM, Wu WX, Qiu XX, Cai XH, He JH, Qin WJ, Zhou WT, Wu WQ, Lin YP. Predicting three-year risk of incident colorectal precancerous conditions using non-invasive predictors and machine-learning algorithms: A multi-center retrospective study. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(46): 121223 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.121223]
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 whole peer review process was professional and quick. The reviewers' comments were clear helped us improve the manuscript to a higher level. The editor team provided thorough and detailed comments for our small mistakes. This make the format of our manuscript much better. All the communications we made with the editor team received timely feedback. We are grateful for the work of the editor team and reviewers.