BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Yu SL, Liu JE, Li CY, Ling H, Tao HY, Shen YQ. Efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization plus targeted chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report and literature review. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(9): 123454 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.123454]
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 pleased that our manuscript has been successfully published in World Journal of Clinical Oncology. The peer-review procedure was well-organized. The reviewers raised insightful comments on our clinical data interpretation and discussion section, which greatly improved the scientific quality of our work. The editorial office kept good communication with authors at every stage of publication. Overall, we have a positive experience of publishing in this journal. Suggestions: 1. Add more detailed online tutorials for new authors about manuscript submission. 2. Shorten the waiting time for the initial review decision appropriately if possible.