Zheng CL, Wang Z, Liu GL, Xiao HY, Xie XD, Wang ZQ, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Jiang J, Liu QL, Lan WH. Tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma with aggressive behavior-insights from molecular profiling and single-cell analysis: A case report. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(9): 122878 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.122878]
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
Dear BPG Editorial Office,
Thank you very much for your message and for the opportunity to complete the Authors Evaluation. I sincerely appreciate the editorial team’s professional handling of my manuscript and the journal’s transparent, author-friendly review and publishing process.
I have no substantive concerns regarding the editorial or peer-review process. My only suggestion is that the interval between manuscript acceptance and final publication could be further shortened. If feasible, streamlining the post-acceptance production workflow—such as expediting copyediting, typesetting, author proof correction, and online-first publication—would help ensure that accepted articles become available to readers more promptly, without compromising editorial or scientific rigor. Shortening the acceptance-to-publication time would enhance the timeliness of research dissemination and further improve author satisfaction and the journal’s competitiveness.
Thank you again for your excellent work and for considering this suggestion.