Kang JH, Liu JJ, Liang PP, Liu HL, Qu FY, Nie PF, Long WJ. Protein acylation and heart failure: A review of novel lysine modifications in cardiac pathology. World J Cardiol 2026; 18(10): 124339 [DOI: 10.4330/wjc.124339]
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 pleased with the final outcome of our submission. Regarding the journal's credibility, we find it to be highly reputable within our field. Its rigorous editorial standards and high visibility ensure that our research will reach a wide and relevant audience, which significantly enhances the impact of our work.
As for the peer review process, we were particularly impressed by the professionalism and depth of the reviewers' comments. The feedback was not only constructive but also scientifically insightful, helping us to refine our arguments and strengthen the quality of the manuscript substantially. The entire workflow, from submission to acceptance, was handled with remarkable efficiency and transparency.
Overall, we have full confidence in the publication and believe this journal is an excellent venue for our research.