Abdulaal R, Khalil LM, Hteit A, Al Mashtoub E, Allaw M, Hajj L, Taki A, Tlais M. Patient-reported outcome assessment in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review of semaglutide trials using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. World J Meta-Anal 2026; 14(2): 121918 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v14.i2.121918]
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 am satisfied with the overall manuscript submission, peer review, editing, and production process. The online submission system was functional and reasonably easy to navigate, and the editorial office provided clear instructions throughout the process. The peer review report was constructive and helped improve the scientific quality, clarity, and organization of the manuscript. The editing and formatting of the article were professional, and the PDF and full-text versions were prepared appropriately. Communication with the journal was timely and helpful. Overall, the publication process was efficient, transparent, and supportive, and I appreciate the efforts of the editorial and production teams.