Chaarani N, Mroweh R, Moghnieh R, Kheir Chahine M, Zaiter H, Abdulaal SY, Obeid N, Tlais M, Raheb J, Farhat H, Abdulaal R. Unconventional mechanisms of resveratrol in atherosclerosis prevention and management. World J Exp Med 2026; 16(1): 116771 [PMID: 41883445 DOI: 10.5493/wjem.v16.i1.116771]
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 sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive comments and suggestions. We appreciate the time and effort devoted to improving the quality of our work.
All comments were carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly to address the reviewers’ concerns. The revisions have helped improve the clarity, structure, and scientific rigor of the manuscript.
Specific modifications were made throughout the manuscript where appropriate, including improvements in language, clarification of methodological aspects, and refinement of the discussion to better highlight the clinical relevance and implications of our findings.
We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and improved its overall quality.
Reply from the Editorial Office
Thanks for taking the time to share this feedback with us. We would love to work with you again!