AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Santhi Silambanan, Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Citation: S Silambanan, Sowmya K, Prabhu Kumar CM. (2021) Evaluating the best tool to assess the cognitive domain of first year MBBS students in the subject of Biochemistry. International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. 7(5); DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/154
Copyright: © 2021 Santhi Silambanan, 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 July 2021 | Accepted: 23 July 2021 | Published: 26 July 2021
Keywords: cognitive domain; assessment tool; essays; multiple choice questions; short-answer questions; case-based questions
Introduction: Assessment is an essential part of the learning process in education. Students follow a surface approach when assessment emphasis is on recall of factual knowledge. Students adopt a deep approach if assessment demands cognitive abilities. The aim of the study was to evaluate the best tool for assessing the cognitive domain of the first year MBBS students.
Materials and Methods: I MBBS students of 28 in number who had scored more than 60 percent marks in the formative assessment examinations were included. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained. Ten types of assessment tools were used. Answer scripts were evaluated by two examiners. SPSS version 16.0 was used for statistical analysis. ANOVA and Tukey posthoc analysis were used. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: All the students performed well in the close-ended questions with statistical significant P=0.000
Conclusion: Good performers did well in all types of questions. Average performers did well in closed ended questions. Poor performers did not perform in both. Essays and SAQs remain the choice to differentiate a best performer in good performing candidates.
Assessment drives learning. Assessment should instill interest and encourage the students to learn more. Present system enforces on just passing the examination. It should meet the challenges of changing attitudes of students and patients. Teaching and learning in Biochemistry by undergraduate medical students is primarily knowledge specific. There are various teaching learning evaluation methods to assess the impact of teaching and learning Biochemistry. Lot of studies have been done to assess the effectiveness of various assessment tools in assessing the knowledge gained by the students. But it has not been proven till date which could serve as the best tool to effectively assess the cognitive domain of the students. Each tool has its inherent advantages and disadvantages [1]. This study was undertaken to assess the best tool to assess the cognitive domain of first year medical students.
Study participants were 28 first year MBBS students from a tertiary care teaching hospital in Chennai, India. Students who had attended and secured more than 60 percent marks in the six formative assessment examinations were included in the study. Students who missed an examination or obtained less than 60 percent in an examination were excluded. The study was conducted after the completion of the first year university examination so that the results of this examinations did not have a bearing on the marks of the students who were participating in the study. The students who were willing to participate alone were included and the study was conducted as per Helsinki declaration. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained (IEC-NI/20/SEP/75/87 dated 10-11-2020) and waiver of consent was obtained since the students have already completed the course. The student's identity was not disclosed at any time during the study as well as during the publication of this article.
Ten types of written assessment tools were used such as essays, short answer questions (SAQs), Visuals, case-based questions, fill in the blanks, true/false, MCQs, match the following, odd man out and fill in the matching words. The duration of the examination was for three hours with total score of 140 marks. The marks for the individual assessment tools were allotted depending on the complexity of the assessment tools. Answer scripts were evaluated by two senior professor; in situations where the discrepancy between the two professors was more than ten percent, third evaluation was sought.
The average of the marks obtained by the students under each assessment tool was expressed as mean and standard deviation. ANOVA and Tukey posthoc analysis were used to compare the performance of the students in the various assessment tools. SPSS version 16.0 was used for statistical analysis. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Table 1: Comparison of average of the marks obtained by the students in each Assessment Tool
Values are expressed as Mean±SD; *: P Value: significant; **: P value: highly significant
Figure 1: Percentage of Students with performance > 50% in each of the assessment tools
Figure 2: Comparison of performances in Open (Essays, Short answer) - Vs Closed (others) -ended Questions
Assessment in medical curriculum is of cardinal importance. The assessment procedures have a powerful influence over the learning process [2]. It has been reported that one of the most important factors influencing students’ choice of learning approach is the way how assessment is being conducted [3]. Evaluation is a systematic process of determining the extent to which the objectives have been achieved by the student [4]. Cognitive domain focuses on intellectual skills. Bloom’s taxonomy [knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation] is frequently used to describe the increasing complexity of cognitive skills as students move forward from a beginner to more advance level in their knowledge. Cognitive domain is the core of the learning domain [5].
The students who are good in skills and knowledge can handle any type of examinations with ease. The problem arises from the average students and low achievers since they lack interest in the subject due to various reasons and they require special attention. There is no uniformity in the assessment methods/tools due to various reasons such as poor understanding of the subject, examiner bias, assessment not based on defined objectives, choosing wrong assessment tool and inadequate expertise in the preparation of assessment tools [1].
Effectiveness of teaching and learning Biochemistry is by various methods such as group discussions, tutorials, problem-based approach, and seminars along with traditional didactic lectures [6, 7]. Biochemistry needs to be taught and learned effectively in the context of the disease to facilitate the transfer of this knowledge in terms of diagnosis and treatment of the patients [8, 9]. There have been many attempts at developing curricula to make biochemistry more relevant to the study of medicine and textbooks have been written with this objective [10, 11]. The undergraduate teaching curricula for medical students should be switched over to ‘Students centered’, which would focus on ‘problem-solving’ rather than on ‘information gathering’ skills. To achieve this, we should implement a combination of different teaching and learning methods [12, 13].
Formative assessment is most effective when it is nested in the ongoing teaching and learning program in order to facilitate timely, specific and actionable feedback to learners. Students can regulate their own performance with the help of good formative assessments [14]. Each assessment method has its own advantages and disadvantages, it is better to employ a variety of assessment methods the shortcomings of one can be overcome by the advantages of another [15]. Before 1950s, assessments were mostly based on the written examinations [16]. Globally it is accepted that the assessment in medical education should not be simply based on evaluation on pre-set criteria and make a judgement but also to facilitate learning through consistent involvement and timely feedback, providing an opportunity to improve [17].
In the present study, average of the marks obtained by all the students in each of the assessment tool showed that there was statistical significant difference in the marks obtained between the various assessment tools, as shown by P =0.0000. On an average almost all students had scored the highest in the true/false assessment tool. Next higher performance was noted in three assessment tools such as match the following, choosing the odd man out and fill in the matching words. Medium performance was seen in the assessment tools such as in essays, visuals, case-based questions and fill in the blanks. They had performed poorly in short answer questions (SAQs) and MCQs. The assessment tool- true/ false has left with only two options which could have been easier for the students to respond. When compared true/false tool with other assessment tools, true/ false tool showed highly statistically significant increase in scores against rest of the assessment tools except the assessment tool, odd man out (Table 1).
Formal assessment in most medical colleges is focussed on the satisfactory attainment of knowledge and skills [18]. Classroom assessments done by the process of gathering, recording, interpreting, using and communicating information about their progress and achievement during the development of knowledge, concepts, skills and attitudes [19]. An ideal assessment tool would possess features such as accountability, flexibility, comprehensiveness, feasibility, timeliness and relevance to both the examiner and examinee [20].
In the present study, the assessment tools with mean score of more than 50 indicated that these assessment tools could give some cues which facilitated them in answering correctly. Also these tools were not being routinely used, hence the students could have found them interesting and easier to answer. When compared between the groups there was statistically decreased performance against the assessment tool, true/false. But there was statistically significant increased performance against the two routinely used tools that is short answer questions (SAQs) and multiple choice questions (MCQs). The assessment tools with mean score of more than 40 indicated that in essay, the student tends to regurgitate whatever the student had learnt under the topic and thus the student were eligible to get marks. In visuals, case-based questions and fill in the blanks the students could perform probably because they were interesting to them and that could correlate clinical settings. When compared between the tools, it showed that there was statistical significant lesser performance in the items with mean scores of more than 50. But statically significant increase in performance compared to SAQs (Table 1).
MCQ is a time-tested method of assessment of knowledge in medical education for the purpose of ranking in the order of merit [2]. Students with recall ability score better in MCQs and students who had best analytical or interpretative skills score better in essays. Scoring was better by MCQs as it is exclusive of the examiners bias [1]. A well-structured MCQ is appropriate for measuring knowledge, comprehension and for analysis due to reliability and validity and better in scoring. MCQs are better to assess all domains of a student and thus a better assessment tool. The advantages with MCQs are that at a time many students can be evaluated and reliability in assessment can be ensured [1]. MCQs are being used increasingly due to their higher reliability, validity, and ease of scoring [3]. A major disadvantage of MCQs is they are often poorly written in a way that test memory recall rather than application of knowledge. However, writing MCQs that evaluate application of knowledge can be challenging, and most faculties are not formally trained; therefore, making it difficult to develop test questions that require application and critical thinking skills [21].
In essays, and short answer questions (SAQs), students need higher order cognitive skills (analytical, interpretative and application skills) [1]. SAQ involves writing short answers to questions sampled from a large part of the curriculum. SAQ carries greater objectivity and reliability and their range of subject areas tested is extended. Essay-type assessment is a sensitive test requiring students not only to recall facts but also to use higher-order cognitive skills. Essay questions though time consuming provides a unique evaluation tool particularly suited for the undergraduate settings [3]. Essays are harder than MCQs for demonstrating the ability to grasp minute details. Writing skills that includes handwriting and organizing skills affect scoring. Anxiety level goes up while answering essay type of questions [22]. In depth studies have gone on to suggest that students generally prefer MCQs but become more enthusiastic about essays when they are well prepared for the examinations [22].
High quality questions are important for medical student assessments. This is even more essential for summative assessments where medical student performance influences their progression within the program and results in a final grade for a course. Problem-solving questions involving short vignettes can be used to assess application of knowledge (procedural knowledge) rather than simple factual recall (declarative knowledge). If the vignettes are not constructed correctly, the examination question can become a pseudovignette that ends with a declarative knowledge (recall) question. It is common when it is written by a faculty member who has not received training in test development. It is time consuming and challenging to write a true clinical vignette to ask basic science questions; however, this can lead to better test questions and the assessment of student knowledge at a higher level [21].
In the present study, the performances in SAQs and MCQs were the least of all the assessment tools used. The student was expected to give the apt answers in few points; the students read the topics on the whole in general, but they could not understand what is clinically important or relevant. If the students should answer the MCQs correctly, the student must be read thorough with each and every point in that chapter. It was not just learning, the student must be able to analyze critically. The MCQs were generally tougher because of the question pattern. The question has a stem and four or five plausible distractors. The distractors are very closely connected differing in minute details. This showed that the student needed to improve thinking, analyzing and correlating aspects. The performance could have better, if the students were involved in lot of discussions within the peers, with the senior undergraduate students, the postgraduate students and the teachers. (Table 1)
Written examination questions are typically classified according to whether they are open-ended or MCQs. In addition, questions can be “context rich” or “context poor.” MCQs may create situations in which an examinee can answer a question by recognizing the correct option, but could not have answered it in the absence of options. This effect is called cueing. Extended matching items (several questions, all with the same long list of possible answers), as well as open-ended short-answer questions, can minimize cueing. Structured essays preclude cueing. In addition, they involve more complex cognitive processes and allow for more contextualized answers than do MCQs [23].
The present study showed that more than 15% of students scored more than 50% in the assessment tools, true/false and fill in the matching words. 10-14% of students scored more than 50% in the assessment tools such as case based learning, match the following and odd man out. 9% of the students scored more than in essays, SAQs, visuals, fill in the blanks and MCQs (Figure 1).
Three forms are commonly used- formative assessment, summative or end-point assessment and self-assessment. Self or ipsative assessment - measuring oneself; test against standards or specific parameters, giving an idea of the performance. This form of assessment becomes very important in teaching methods such as problem-based learning, where self-directed learning is required [24]. As the students of today are more inclined to question and challenge grades, there is a growing emphasis on ensuring that assessment methods are reliable, valid and able to sustain legal scrutiny. Assessment has three goals: to optimise the capabilities of all learners, to protect the public by identifying incompetent physicians and to provide a basis for choosing applicants for advanced training [20, 25].
In the index study, figure 2 shows the performance of the students in each of the assessment tool individually. To simplify the interpretation grouping was done as open ended and close ended questions. Essays and SAQs were grouped as open-ended questions which are being traditionally followed. The rest of the assessment tools were grouped as closed ended questions. On the whole the performance of all the candidates were better in closed ended questions compared to open ended questions. Also, it was inferred that the student who scored the second highest in close ended questions, scored the highest in the open-ended questions (student 22). Whereas the student who scored the highest in the open-ended questions did not score well in the open-ended questions (student 13). Generally, students who were good performers in close ended questions were not that good in open ended questions. Probably they might have difficulty in comprehending their answers. These students need moral boosting with clarity of the subject which could remarkably enhance their performance. There was another category of students whose performances were alike in both the groups of questions. These students require close monitoring and training since they had more chances of scoring less than required to pass the examination (Figure 2).
The summative purpose of assessment was often justified by the social accountability of the schools to ensure that the graduates are competent [26]. The framework for single assessments identifies construct validity, reproducibility, equivalence, acceptability, feasibility, educational benefit and timely feedback as key elements. Single methods of assessment alone are unable to assess all the attributes required to become a competent health professional. [27, 28] In planning and designing assessments, it is essential to recognize the stakes involved in it. The higher the stake, the greater the implications of the outcome of the assessment. Measuring progress in acquiring core knowledge and competencies may be a problem if the examinations are designed to measure multiple integrated abilities, such as factual knowledge, problem-solving, analysis and synthesis of information [29].
Limitations: Use of small sample size; feedback from faculty and students; incorporation into formative assessments
Good performers did well in both open- and close-ended questions which require more complex cognitive processes, structuring and logical reasoning. Average performers did well in closed ended questions. Poor performers did not perform in both. Essays and SAQs remain the choice to differentiate a best performer in good performing candidates. The use of multiple formats is recommended in assessment of medical students. However, assessment tools should be valid and reliable and be able to measure the different aspects of professional competencies. Essays, SAQs and MCQs in definite proportion are a better method for assessing the cognitive domain of undergraduate medical students instead of using only one or two assessment tools. When clear grading guidelines are in place, structured essays can be psychometrically robust. We highly recommend that medical schools take the time and effort to evaluate their current assessments to ensure that students are being asked the application questions necessary to measure student learning.
The authors wish to thank the management for providing financial support for doing oral presentation in the 11th Asia Pacific Medical Education Conference held at National University of Singapore, Singapore. The authors wish to thank the management for providing necessary infrastructure for conducting the study. The authors also wish to express their thanks to the students who participated in the study.
Dr Santhi Silambanan: concept, design, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing and manuscript review; Dr K Sowmya: literature search, manuscript preparation; Dr CM Prabhu Kumar: design, literature search, statistical analysis.
There is no conflicts of interest during the conductance of the study or publication of the article
Funding details: The study was not supported by any funds from any national or international funding agencies
Ethics statement: ethics approval was obtained from institutional ethics committee.
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.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
