Mathen PG, Sharma N, Nair RS, Valiyaparambath A, Kaur H, Gupta A, Sharma R, Pannu AK. Correlation between mechanical power and lung ultrasound score and association with clinical outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(3): 119057 [DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.119057]
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?
No
2 Are you satisfied with the peer review report?
Yes
3 Are you satisfied with the editing quality of the article?
No
4 Are you satisfied with the article PDFs?
No
5 Are you satisfied with the online full-text article?
No
6 Are you satisfied with the prepared figures in the online full-text article?
No
7 Are you satisfied with the prepared tables in the online full-text article?
No
8 Are you satisfied with the published articles processes?
No
9 Are you satisfied with the requirement for providing academic rules and norms?
No
10 Are you satisfied with the academic misconduct detection report?
Yes
11 Are you satisfied with the period of publication?
No
12 Are you satisfied with the editing and publishing rules and norms?
No
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?
No
2 Are you satisfied with the anonymous peer review process?
Yes
3 Is the peer review report of great help to your manuscript?
No
4 Do you think the peer review report for your manuscript is fair or objective?
Yes
Author‘s Comments
Overall, we were satisfied with the scientific peer-review process; however, our experience with post-acceptance communication and production was less satisfactory. There was a significant delay in publication despite completion and approval of the final proofs, and multiple queries regarding the publication status received no response, requiring repeated follow-up. More timely communication and clearer updates during the production and publication stages would substantially improve the author experience.