Talwar V, Jain A, Goel V, Agarwal B, Gupta P, Tripathi R, Rawal S, Mehta A. Genomic landscape and clinical actionability of renal cell carcinoma in an Indian cohort: A real-world targeted next-generation sequencing study. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(8): 123328 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.123328]
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 appreciate the World Journal of Clinical Oncology editorial and peer-review teams for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for providing constructive and actionable feedback. The peer-review comments were helpful in strengthening the clarity, methodological reporting, language quality, and presentation of the manuscript. We also appreciated the professional communication and guidance provided by the editorial and production teams throughout the revision and publication process. Overall, we are satisfied with the publication experience and grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the journal.