BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Zhang J, Li WB, Wang XX, Han TT, Dong S, Sang YN, Lu M, Guo XH. Congqi Shoushen Tuina Method for generalized anxiety disorder: Clinical outcomes and serum metabolomic profiles. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(7): 117803 [DOI: 10.5498/wjp.117803]
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 peer‑review and publication process of my manuscript in this journal was standardized, professional and efficient, which gave me an excellent overall submission experience. The journal adopts a well‑established manuscript‑management workflow covering online submission, initial format screening, external peer review, secondary review, final approval, proofreading and formal publication. Each procedure is clearly defined, transparently tracked and reasonably scheduled, ensuring standardized and time‑efficient manuscript processing. External reviewers conducted thorough assessments on the research methodology, novelty, argumentation framework and written expression with rigorous and objective academic standards. Their detailed, targeted revision comments not only optimized the content and logical structure of this paper, but also offered valuable insights and guidance for my future academic research and manuscript composition. The editorial team demonstrated high professionalism and a conscientious work ethic. They maintained timely communication, strictly standardized formatting, proofread textual errors, updated review progress promptly, and accelerated the whole publication procedure. Upholding strict academic principles with impartial peer‑review criteria and standardized publishing protocols, the journal builds a high‑end platform for researchers to exchange academic ideas and present research outputs, and is highly recommended for scholars.