Liu YP, Shen CC, Li J, Huang HM, Jiang JP, Li AQ. Efficacy comparison of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and routine support on anxiety and sleep quality in peritoneal dialysis patients. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(10): 122241 [DOI: 10.5498/wjp.122241]
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
I have a positive experience with the journal’s online full-text presentation and entire article publication system. All academic specifications, standardized submission rules and academic misconduct verification results are clearly provided. The journal’s editing criteria, publishing standards, publication cycle and anonymous peer review duration are all reasonable and standardized. Professional peer review feedback effectively helps me optimize my manuscript, and I fully recognize the review process is rigorous, fair and objective.