Tsai CY, Huang CS. Predictive model to identify patients requiring extended interferon therapy in chronic hepatitis B. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(37): 119736 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.119736]
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
1. Evaluation of a journal’s credibility by Authors
The journal maintains high academic standards and provides author guidelines on its website. Its F6Publishing system offers integration tools—especially for managing and organizing references—all of which provide authors with a user-friendly, transparent, and reliable editorial environment.
2. Evaluation of a journal’s peer review by Authors
The peer reviews were strict and clear, especially providing suggestions from the readers’ point of view to make the article flow better. The reviewers’ feedback not only improved the quality of our manuscript, but also made it easier to read.
In conclusion, we sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their patient guidance and prompt communication throughout the entire process. In particular, the editor’s reminder to update the definition from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) showed great sensitivity and professionalism. It has been a pleasant publication experience.