BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Li QS, Hu AY, Chen SJ, Yu GJ, Fan Y, Chen YG, Tian S, Peng CJ, Han M. Efficacy and safety of adjuvant targeted immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high recurrence risks after hepatectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(6): 119272 [DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.119272]
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 entire submission and publication process was highly professional and efficient. From initial submission to final acceptance, every step of communication was clear and timely, allowing us to stay fully informed about the status of our manuscript. The peer review process left a deep impression on us. Both reviewers provided highly constructive comments, not only pointing out areas for improvement but also offering specific suggestions for revision. These feedbacks greatly enhanced the rigor and clarity of our work, making the final version far more complete and compelling than the initial draft. The editorial office handled everything promptly and professionally, and the decision-making process regarding reviewer comments was fair and transparent. During the production phase, both language polishing and figure/layout formatting met exceptionally high quality standards. We are very satisfied with both the final published PDF version and the online full text. In summary, this publication experience with your journal was extremely pleasant. We sincerely thank the editorial team and reviewers for their hard work. We look forward to submitting more manuscripts to your journal in the future and will actively recommend it to our colleagues.