Stuparu Adam AM, Osama A, Stere A, Cochior D, Pogărăşteanu ME, Moldovan CA, Tudorache IS, Adam R, Moldovan AD. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography-guided percutaneous bone biopsy in musculoskeletal oncology: A single-center cohort study. World J Radiol 2026; 18(10): 125901 [DOI: 10.4329/wjr.125901]
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?
No
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?
No
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?
No
12 Are you satisfied with the editing and publishing rules and norms?
No
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?
No
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
Instructions for authors are not clear and far too complex, redacted in a file rather than being based on a Word template with designated styles for each section of the paper being submitted. The process of prepairing the figures is too complicated, even for simple imaging samples, let alone for complex blot-reports and combined microscopic imaging. Responding to 3 reviews and to the editor is too complicated and time consuming, please adopt a simpler way of comment call-outs in Word on a sigle file that contains all revisions asked. Also, the use of AI-generated reviews by the editor raises some questions since the reviewers are specifically asked not to use generative-AI tools in their reviews.