Chen B, Chen F, Sun LT, Zhou XL, Guo KB. Beyond a synthetic lethal pair: The atorvastatin-gefitinib combination as a testable model for cross-pillar therapy in colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(11): 120407 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.120407]
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 would like to express my sincere gratitude to the editorial team and the reviewers for their professional and efficient handling of our manuscript. The review process was thorough and constructive: the reviewers' comments were insightful and specific, and they helped us substantially improve the clarity, rigor, and clinical relevance of our work. The editorial staff were responsive and courteous at every stage, from submission through language editing to final production, which made the whole process smooth and reassuring for the authors. I also appreciate the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' suggestions in detail. This was a very positive publishing experience, and I would gladly consider this journal for our future work. Thank you again for your time, expertise, and dedication.