Chen WY, Gan ZY, Cai YW, Hua ZQ, Yi L. Advances in deep inspiration breath-hold technique for radiotherapy of right-sided breast cancer. World J Transl Med 2026; 12(4): 126251 [DOI: 10.5528/wjtm.126251]
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
The manuscript underwent external, single-blind peer review followed by a focused revision that preserved its original scope and central conclusions. The reviewers’ comments were relevant and proportionate to the nature of a minireview, leading mainly to clarification, evidence calibration, and improvements in organization and readability rather than major restructuring. The revision more clearly distinguishes the relatively consistent dosimetric benefits for the ipsilateral lung and liver from the uncertain effects on the heart, right coronary artery, and contralateral breast, while refining the discussion of RPM, OSMS, ABC, patient selection, breathing training, and per-fraction quality assurance. After acceptance on October 9, 2026, the article was made available online on November 4, 2026. Overall, the editorial and peer-review process was orderly and timely, strengthening the accuracy, balance, and clinical usefulness of the article while preserving the authors’ scientific interpretation.