AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2690-4861/271
1 Department of Biology, Jamoum University College, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
2 Biological Sciences Department, Collage of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
3 Al Bayan Model School for Girls, Ministry of education, Makkah region, Jeddah governate, Saudi Arabia.
4 Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
*Corresponding Author: Bayan Sajer, Biological Sciences Department, Collage of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Citation: Adi Essam Zarei, Bayan Sajer, Feda Alharshani, Afrah Alshehri, Lamar Faidah, Wafa Alshehri (2022). Knowledge, levels of acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine among general population of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. 12(2); DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/271
Copyright: © 2022 Bayan Sajer, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 01 November 2022 | Accepted: 10 November 2022 | Published: 07 December 2022
Keywords: COVID-19; coronavirus; vaccine hesitancy; kingdom of saudi arabia
On 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic [1]. The disease is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [2]. As of 17 June 2022, SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 535,248,141 people, with 6,313,229 deaths [3]. Due to devastating effect of COVID-19, achieving herd immunity to prevent onward transmission is crucial. Although obtaining herd immunity against COVID-19 through natural infection is theoretically possible but would place enormous burden on healthcare facilities and may result in over 30 million fatalities globally [4]. So, vaccines remain the most effective tool to prevent infectious diseases and improving the global health. Worldwide COVID-19 effective vaccination campaigns are the only solution to curtail the devastating effects of the disease.
Previously, Effective vaccination programs have helped to prevent millions of fatalities each year [5–7]. Vaccination programs have advanced greatly in this crucial times, despite widespread anti-vaccination attitudes and misinformation [8,9]. Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Sinopharm and Sinovac are among the vaccines currently authorized by the WHO. All these vaccines are safe and effective, however; some people may have mild side effects. COVID-19 vaccinations protect against infection as well as serious sickness and death. Despite the fact that mass vaccination programs have been implemented across the world, the success of these programs has been hampered by vaccine hesitancy in some countries and regions [10,11], which is described as the hesitation in accepting or refusing accessible vaccinations [12]. Concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccinations may be seen all around the world [13,14]. Different studies identified numerous associated factors promote hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine. These factors include, socio-demographic features, model of health belief, psychological antecedents, knowledge of vaccine, beliefs of conspiracy, safety and efficacy of vaccine and the fear of side effects of vaccine [14–18].
Following the worldwide initiation of a mass vaccination program against COVID-19, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) also launched its vaccination campaign for Saudi nationals and immigrants residing in the Kingdom. Currently, three different vaccines, including Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca are widely administrated in KSA [19]. Initially, the frontline workers, healthcare professionals and older people were prioritized due to the limited production and availability of vaccine doses [20]. The vaccine was rolled out for the younger population in the later stages [18]. However, vaccine hesitancy is the biggest challenge in the national vaccine campaign. A range of religious, ethnic, social and cultural beliefs may influence the vaccination campaign. Additionally, safety concerns of newly approved vaccines also hinder vaccine acceptability. Another problem is the perceived side effects of the rapidly developed vaccine. Despite the coordinated international efforts for mass vaccination, the anti-vaxxers have spread the disinformation regarding hazards and side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines creating hurdles in vaccinating the masses. The success of the national vaccine campaign depends not only on its availability, efficacy and safety but also on people's acceptance [21–24]. The two barriers that can hamper the vaccine campaign are structural and attitudinal. Systemic issues that influence an individual's ability to access the service such as availability of vaccine, outlet location and affordability, are structural barriers. On the other hand, beliefs and perceptions influencing vaccine acceptance come under attitudinal barriers [25,26]. Currently, Saudi health ministry has administered more than 66.6 million free doses. In June 2021, the country approved the Pfizer vaccine for children between 12 to 18 years of age [27]. The availability of free vaccines and the countrywide presence of vaccination centers indicate that structural barriers are not restricting the KSA from achieving full vaccination coverage. Thus, the attitudinal barriers are the leading cause of vaccination hesitancy. In the Kingdom, the government focuses on communication and behavioral strategies such as engagement of religious scholars, government officials and celebrities and broadcasting vaccination messages through various media outlets and social media platforms. There are few studies on vaccination acceptance and hesitancy and knowledge levels, so a questionnaire-based study was conducted to investigate the knowledge levels of acceptance and hesitancy among people in KSA. The results obtained through this study will aid in gathering helpful information for improving vaccination coverage in the Kingdom. We hypothesize that the Saudi population doesn`t have significant vaccine hesitancy.
This was descriptive study carried out at three cities: Makkah, Jeddah, and Riyadh in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study conducted on June 25, 2021, to October 7, 2021. The criteria for inclusion in our study were all the participants of both genders, age over 18 years, and with permanent residential status in Saudi Arabia. Whereas the criteria for exclusion were all the participants with major diseases and not willing to take part in our survey. An informed consent was taken from all the participants in our study. Data was collected from all participants by using validated and self-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was printed in hard copy. Google forms was also generated which was shared with participants by using social applications such Twitter, WhatsApp, and Facebook. The participants were selected mainly from Makkah, Jeddah, and Riyadh cities. All participants were informed about the aim of the study. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been followed strictly. The questionnaire was written in Arabic and English languages. To test the validity of the questionnaire, a pretest has been carried out before spreading the questionnaire, this pretest was done by all authors and some random residents. The questionnaire was categorized into three main parts, the first consists of socio-demographic information, the second consists of the questions regarding the knowledge of COVID-19 vaccine, while the third part consists of the questions concerning the barriers of COVID-19 vaccination. All the data was analyzed by using IBM SPSS version 24. Variables like ages, mean and standard deviation were computed, whereas variables like genders, job status, level of education, frequencies, and percentages were computed.
In this study, a total of 565 respondents were enrolled. Three hundred and sixty responses (63.72%) were gathered by using hard copy questionnaires, whereas 205 (36.28%) responses were collected through Google forms. The males represent 122 (21.59%) and females 443 (78.41%). The mean age (SD) was 36 years (11.2). The minimum age was 18 years and maximum age was 71 years. Based on age distribution, 136 (24.07%) of respondents located in 18-24 years range, 118 (20.88%) in 25-34 years range, 130 (23%) in 35-44 years range, 77 (13.63%) in 45-54 years range, 71 (12.57%) in 55-64 years, while 33 (5.84%) respondents were ≥ 65 years. Based on education level, 123 (21.77%) of respondents were in the high school level, 353 (62.48%) were in the college level, 74 (13.10%) were in post-graduated level, while 15 (2.65%) were uneducated (helped by educated relatives to fulfill questionnaire). In the study, 220 (38.94%) of participants were employed, whereas 345 (61.06%) were unemployed (Table 1).
Table : 1
In the study, 436 (77.17%) respondents located Makkah, 80 (14.16%) in Jeddah, and 49 (8.67%) in Riyadh (Figure 1). Regarding chronic diseases, 124 (21.95%) of participants were suffering from chronic diseases, while 441 (78.05%) participants with no chronic diseases.
Figure 1. Pie charts representing the demographic characteristics of the participants.
In response to question about number of approved vaccines in Saudi Arabia, 355 (62.83%) participants responded that there is only one approved vaccine in Saudi Arabia, 72 (12.74%) participants responded that there are two approved vaccines while 138 (24.42%) participants responded that there are three approved vaccines. In a response to question regarding safety of vaccine, 512 (90.62%) respondents think that Pfizer is safest vaccine, 42 (7.43%) considered AstraZeneca as safest vaccine whereas 11 (1.95%) participants consider Moderna as safest vaccine. In case of pregnant women, 512 (90.62%) participants consider Pfizer as safest vaccine, while 53 (9.38%) respondents consider other vaccines are safer for pregnant women. On the other hand, 513 (90.80%) participants considered that Pfizer vaccine have fewer side effects. Majority of the participants 82.30% (n=465) think that Pfizer vaccine has the highest efficiency in the protection against COVID-19 while 100 participants (17.70%) pointed other vaccines as having highest efficiency. A total number of 50 (8.85%) participants responded with uncertainty about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine. However, a majority of participants (72.04%) think that vaccines are 70-90 Percentage effective against COVID-19.
Two hundred and ninety participants (51.33%) think that having acute allergy is a contraindication for COVID-19 vaccinated while 250 participants (44.25%) think pregnancy and breastfeeding as contraindications for COVID-19 vaccination. In our study, 445 (78.76%) respondents think that different vaccines provide different levels of immunity. Nevertheless, 492 participants (87.08%) were vaccinated while 73 (12.92%) participants were not vaccinated against COVID-19. Most of the participants 79.47% (n=391) received vaccination at free will while 101 (20.53%) participants were forced by surrounding circumstances to get vaccinated. All in all, 357 (72.56%) participants were vaccinated with Pfizer vaccine while 135 (27.44%) were vaccinated with AstraZeneca. None of the participants of this study was vaccinated with Moderna vaccine. Four hundred and fifty participants (79.65%) considered COVID-19 vaccination as a necessary preventive measure against the disease. In response to a question regarding vaccination hesitancy among people, 135 participants (23.89%) answered short time for vaccine development, 90 participants (15.93%) answered fear of side effects as a factor for reluctance, 105 participants (18.58%) replied that people are waiting to check vaccines side effects on others, 90 (15.93%) participants answered that lack of knowledge regarding ingredients of vaccine, 50 participants (8.85%) considered COVID-19 vaccines as a political matter, while 95 participants (16.81%) responded that previous infection with COVID-19 as a factor for vaccination hesitancy (Table 2).
Table : 2
Vaccines have a critical role in limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Despite this, there is still limited accessibility to the vaccines worldwide. It is possible to raise vaccination rates by developing the public's desire to get immunized once vaccines are widely accessible. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, public aversion of receiving safe and recommended vaccinations; which described as "vaccine hesitancy," was already a growing problem [12]. Vaccine reluctance has already been identified by the WHO as a world health concern [28] and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the topic has gained even greater prominence [29]. Three COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna were authorized and used by Saudi health officials [30,31]. All residents of Saudi Arabia; including Saudis and non-Saudis, have free access to these vaccines [32]. Despite this, there haven't been many surveys conducted in Saudi Arabia to gauge the level of vaccination hesitancy.
COVID-19 vaccination rejection and hesitancy pose a significant obstacle to worldwide efforts to contain the pandemic [33]. Present study was conducted to determine the knowledge and hesitancy of Saudi Arabia`s residents about COVID-19 vaccination.
Based on the overall knowledge and awareness of the respondents, our study shows that majority of the participants have good knowledge about COVID-19 vaccination. About 72% of the participants think that vaccines are effective against COVID-19. Furthermore, 79.65% participants considered COVID-19 vaccines as necessary preventive measure in controlling the disease. These findings are in line with the previous study which also reported good knowledge of the participants about COVID-19 vaccination [34]. This good level of knowledge might be due to majority of educated participants in our study.
Vaccination is seen as a public-health marvel of the twenty-first century [35]. Vaccination not only protects the inoculated person, but it may also protect the whole society via herd immunity. Vaccinating most healthy people in a community helps safeguard those who cannot be vaccinated. However, a considerable fraction of the population must be vaccinated to accomplish this population-level impact [4]. Based on presently available data, experts believe that immunizing 70-80% of total population will resulted in herd immunity against COVID-19 [36,37]. In our study, 492 participants (87.08%) were vaccinated while 73 (12.92%) were not vaccinated. Accordingly, the vaccination rate is higher than previous studies from Saudi Arabia [38,39]. The good impacts of advertisements established by the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia to urge people to get the vaccination, the actions made by many high officials to receive the immunizations in front of social media and the distribution of vaccines for free all have contributed to the considerable rise in the COVID-19 vaccine acceptability rate over the last few months. In contrary to our study, a recent study from Jordan and United States reported 37% and 57% vaccine acceptance rate respectively which is very low compare to our study [16,40].
Uncovering the causes for vaccine apprehension might aid experts in increasing public vaccination intentions. It is vital to understand and address the public's perceptions to overcome vaccination obstacles. In the current study, in response to a question of vaccination hesitancy among people, 22.12% of participants answered short time of making vaccine, 15.93% of participants answered fear of side effects, 18.58% of participants replied that they are waiting to check their effects on others, 15.93% of participants answered that they don’t know the ingredients of vaccine and 8.85% of participants considered COVID-19 vaccines as political matter. Historically, the failure of vaccination campaigns against polio in remote parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria were largely attributable to religious resistance from clerics with little scientific knowledge [41]. Since the bulk of Saudi Arabia's people trusts Islamic clerics' advice, the public's inaccurate impressions may be addressed by bringing in well-educated religious scholars to participate in public health education and promotion programs, where these false notions can be corrected using Sharia law and scientific findings. Social media is the main source of misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Social media serves a key role in misleading people regarding vaccine knowledge [42]. Previous vaccination initiatives in Pakistan have failed as a result of such misinformation [15]. In these situations, it is critical for the Saudi Arabian Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to emphasize the seriousness of this topic and anybody propagating false information should be educated. Potential strengths of the current research include a large number of participants and involvement from people of varying ages and geographic locations. The present research, however, has a few drawbacks. This is descriptive study that used a non-probability convenience sampling approach. Moreover, Google doc was used to document 36.28 % responses, which might contribute to bias. To get a better understanding of the possible hurdles and their motivations, our research suggests performing a qualitative assessment of the public's perspective of COVID-19 immunization reluctance. Nevertheless, it is strongly suggested that surveys of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Saudi Arabia be expanded to include the whole population, as this survey limited to small sample of population.
Our study concludes that majority of the participants have good knowledge about COVID-19 vaccination. Concerns over vaccine components are among the key causes for vaccination apprehension. Moreover, many people expressed concerns about the vaccine's effectiveness as well as its possible immediate and long-term side effects. It is critical to enhance public knowledge about the seriousness of COVID-19 infection, the significance of immunization, its safety and effectiveness. To achieve public confidence and solve public issues, the authorities should bring together religious and social aspects. Failure to do so; regrettably, may result in failure to reach herd immunity in near future.
Conceptualization, B.S.; methodology, B.S.; software, A. Z.; validation, A.Z., B. S. and W. A.; formal analysis, A. Z.; investigation, F. A., A. A. and L. F.; resources, F. A., A. A. and L. F.; data curation, B. S.; writing—original draft preparation, B. S., F. A., A. A. and L. F.; writing—review and editing, A. Z.; visualization, A. Z. and B. S.; supervision, B. S., A. Z. and W. A.; project administration, B. S.; funding acquisition, None. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”
This research received no external funding.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to participants in the survey were given the choice either to take part in the survey or not. Participants were not asked to give their names, addresses, phone numbers or any personal information except for their genders, regions and ages.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
