Xiao S, Song DD, Yu YP, Xu XZ, Tang JF, Zhou CF. Novel regulatory network of PS-1/β-catenin/p-PTEN axis in gastric cancer invasion. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(7): 118256 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i7.118256]
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’m really happy with my entire submission and peer review experience with World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. The journal’s online submission platform is straightforward to use, and all the rules for paper formatting, references and extra files are laid out clearly, which cut down a lot of my prep work. The editorial team was super quick and nice whenever I sent them questions. The reviewers gave solid, specific feedback tailored to gastrointestinal oncology; they honestly pointed out weak spots in my data analysis and discussion instead of making vague remarks. The review timeline was fair and easy to track. All the revision advice helped me refine my paper and make my research on digestive cancers much more rigorous and valuable.