BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Carioti G, Brighenti I, Le Donne N, Banfi C, Azzahrani L, Galassi L. Clinical assessment of nail and skin lesions in indoor climbers: A clinic-based cross-sectional study. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 121149 [DOI: 10.5662/wjm.121149]
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 would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers and the Editorial Office for their careful, professional, and constructive handling of our manuscript. The peer-review reports were clear, fair, and objective, and the comments provided were genuinely helpful in improving the scientific quality, clarity, organization, and overall presentation of the article. The reviewers identified relevant points that required clarification and offered practical suggestions that allowed us to strengthen both the methodological description and the discussion of our findings. Throughout the submission, revision, and production process, we had a very positive experience with the journal. Communication with the Editorial Office was always courteous, efficient, and timely, and the instructions provided at each stage were sufficiently clear to guide us through the required revisions. We also appreciated the structured online submission system, which made it easy to follow the progress of the manuscript and to upload the revised files and supporting documents. Overall, we are fully satisfied with the peer-review and editorial process. We believe that the reviewers’ observations contributed meaningfully to the final quality of the manuscript and helped us present our work in a more precise and accessible manner. We are grateful for the time and expertise dedicated by the reviewers and editors. Based on this positive experience, we would be pleased to consider this journal again for future submissions and would be happy to publish further research with the journal. We thank the entire editorial team for their continued professionalism, support, and commitment throughout the publication process.