BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Ribeiro Junior MAF, M Henry S, Thalib HI, Khan S, Grochowska-Krystman A, Fontenelle Vieira L, Reddi S, Dib Possiedi R. Surgical fecal diversion vs non-diversion in perineal necrotizing soft tissue infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(2): 117985 [DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i2.117985]
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
The submission and publication experience with the World Journal of Critical Care Medicine has consistently been extremely positive. The platform is user-friendly, dynamic, and very intuitive for authors throughout all stages of the editorial process. One of the greatest strengths of the journal is the efficient and professional communication between the authors and the editorial team, which is always prompt, clear, and highly supportive. It is truly a pleasure to collaborate and publish within this editorial group. Over the years, the journal has demonstrated continuous growth in visibility, scientific impact, and recognition among critical care and acute care professionals worldwide. I strongly encourage colleagues and researchers in the field to consider submitting their work to this journal, as it provides an excellent environment for disseminating high-quality scientific research and fostering international academic collaboration.