Tarara V, Panteris E, Varlamis S, Andreadou E, Pessach I, Bobos M, Chatzidimitriou M, Mitka S, Papoutsi A, Eleftheriou P, Skepastianos P, Karamitrousis E. Prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A contemporary systematic review and modelling study. World J Transl Med 2026; 12(4): 126295 [DOI: 10.5528/wjtm.126295]
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 for the peer review process at the World Journal of Translational Medicine. The reviewers provided thorough, constructive and highly professional comments that substantially improved the clarity, scientific rigor and translational relevance of our manuscript. The editorial handling was timely, transparent and fair, with clear communication at every stage. The suggestions regarding methodology, interpretation of data and recent literature were particularly valuable. Overall, the process was rigorous yet supportive, and it significantly enhanced the quality of the final article. We would gladly submit future work to the journal.