Lu Y, Zhou XL, Chen F. Letter to the Editor: Spinal IL-33/ST2 blockade for gallbladder carcinoma pain - balancing central analgesia with systemic tumor immune microenvironment risks. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(7): 121633 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i7.121633]
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 had a very positive overall experience publishing with this journal. The editorial team was highly professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the entire process from submission to final online publication. The peer-review comments were constructive, detailed, and insightful, which significantly helped improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and overall quality of our manuscript. Communication from the editorial office was timely, clear, and efficient at every stage, and the publication workflow was smooth, transparent, and well-organized. I truly appreciate the high-quality service provided to researchers and would be happy to consider submitting my future work to this journal.