BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Wang MF, Chen R, Li J, Cun ZK, Li Q, Jiang HC, Li JW. Genotype-phenotype landscape of Sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide deficiency in Yunnan Province, China: A five-year retrospective, multi-ethnic cohort study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(11): 123971 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.123971]
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
Our manuscript has just been published online in World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, and I'd like to share a few words about the experience. From submission to online publication, the whole process moved along smoothly. The assistant editor, the handling editor, the reviewers, the editorial director, the editor-in-chief, the language editor and the production editor all did their part, and responses were quick whenever we had questions. The peer-review comments were specific and constructive, and they genuinely helped us sharpen the study design and tighten the writing. The language and production edits also made the final paper much cleaner and easier to read. I also appreciate that the journal is open access, so colleagues in the field can read the paper without barriers, which matters for a topic like ours. The post-publication channels—article quality tracking, reader comments, and the Letter to the Editor option—are a nice touch too, since they keep the conversation going after publication. Overall, the review was rigorous, the process was transparent, and the service was professional. I'd be glad to recommend the journal to colleagues and to work with it again.