BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Liu YM, Liu M, Yuan H, Li B. Double-edged role of N6-methyladenosine reader YTH structural domain family protein 2 in neurological disorders: Molecular mechanisms and translational prospects. World J Exp Med 2026; 16(1): 116383 [PMID: 41883454 DOI: 10.5493/wjem.v16.i1.116383]
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 system is highly convenient, efficient, and easy to use, which greatly simplifies the processes of manuscript handling, revision, and resubmission. It allows authors to complete each step in a clear and organized manner, thereby improving overall communication and workflow efficiency. In addition, the reviewer’s report is অত্যন্ত helpful, professional, and constructive for the improvement of our manuscript. The comments and suggestions provided are insightful and detailed, enabling us to identify weaknesses, clarify important points, and further enhance the scientific quality, logical structure, and presentation of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback, which has played an important role in strengthening our work.