Xu JL, Ge ZW, Wu CW, Wang YH, Mao JD. Multidisciplinary care for colorectal cancer brain metastases with headache as initial symptom: A case report and literature review. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(8): 119679 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.119679]
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 are very grateful to the editorial board, the editor-in-chief, the language editors, and the production team for their rigorous and efficient handling of our manuscript. The peer-review process was thorough and constructive; each reviewer provided insightful suggestions that genuinely strengthened our work. The editorial decisions were communicated clearly and promptly, and the production team’s attention to detail during copyediting and proofreading was impressive. The online submission and tracking system was intuitive and reliable, which made the entire process smooth and transparent. We also appreciate the journal’s policy of publishing author evaluations and reader comments, as it fosters an open and collaborative scientific community. If we were to offer one minor suggestion, it would be to provide more detailed formatting templates for figures and references to further reduce the revision burden. Overall, we have full confidence in the journal’s credibility and would gladly submit our future work here. Thank you for your dedicated service to the research community.