BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Zhang WL, Gao HL, Yang MM, Zhu QF. Letter to the Editor: From glycemia to mood: Exploration of a postpartum depression prediction model in gestational diabetes. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(8): 120820 [DOI: 10.5498/wjp.120820]
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
As the corresponding author, I would like to express my sincere and wholehearted satisfaction with the entire handling of this manuscript. Throughout the full lifecycle of the work—from the initial submission and editorial screening, through the rigorous peer-review process, to the subsequent revisions and final decision—every stage was conducted with remarkable professionalism and procedural fairness. The reviewers provided thoughtful, constructive, and highly insightful comments that substantially improved the quality of our work, while the editorial team demonstrated exceptional efficiency in decision-making and maintained clear, timely, and courteous communication at every step. I am deeply grateful to the handling editor and all the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable time, expertise, and dedication, which have made this a truly rewarding experience for our research group.