Here's how JKCVHL.COM makes money* and how much!

*Please read our disclaimer before using our estimates.
Loading...

JKCVHL . COM {}

  1. Analyzed Page
  2. Matching Content Categories
  3. CMS
  4. Monthly Traffic Estimate
  5. How Does Jkcvhl.com Make Money
  6. Keywords
  7. Topics
  8. Questions
  9. Social Networks
  10. External Links
  11. Analytics And Tracking
  12. Libraries
  13. Hosting Providers
  14. CDN Services

We are analyzing https://jkcvhl.com/index.php/jkcvhl/peerreviewprocess.

Title:
Peer Review Process | Journal of Kidney Cancer
Description:
No description found...
Website Age:
12 years and 1 months (reg. 2013-05-11).

Matching Content Categories {📚}

  • Books & Literature
  • Education
  • Careers

Content Management System {📝}

What CMS is jkcvhl.com built with?

Website use Open Journal Systems 3.4.0.6.

Traffic Estimate {📈}

What is the average monthly size of jkcvhl.com audience?

🌌 Gigantic Traffic: 2M - 5M visitors per month


Based on our best estimate, this website will receive around 3,040,391 visitors per month in the current month.

check SE Ranking
check Ahrefs
check Similarweb
check Ubersuggest
check Semrush

How Does Jkcvhl.com Make Money? {💸}

We find it hard to spot revenue streams.

Not all websites are made for profit; some exist to inform or educate users. Or any other reason why people make websites. And this might be the case. Jkcvhl.com might be earning cash quietly, but we haven't detected the monetization method.

Keywords {🔍}

reviewers, review, manuscript, articles, authors, interest, article, check, conflict, journal, plagiarism, editorial, literature, decision, findings, peer, guidelines, similarity, index, original, abstract, scientific, stated, manuscripts, published, make, potential, paper, comments, criteria, assessing, require, language, editing, written, conveys, major, theme, relevant, methods, adequately, number, case, kidney, cancer, vhl, author, content, main, home,

Topics {✒️}

step review process fellow practitioners obvious automated notification system q3-oncology -rank 242/326 unbiased scientific opinion scientific advisory board assessing case reports editorial team assessing review articles assessing original articles previously published literature pubmed search peer review peer-reviewed editorial office editorial staff fair review scientific misconduct manuscript confidential original source editorial decision published article quick jump preliminary check plagiarism check submission section detect plagiarism 'similarity index' similarity index 10% similarity index corrective action text recycling personally contacted seek expression email official invitation reviewer responsibilities remain anonymous time frame major theme ethics approval informed consent data fabrication figure manipulation critically evaluate case adequately intended message kidney cancer adequately addressed correspondence believes

Questions {❓}

  • Are statistical methods clearly stated?
  • Are the methods adequately described?
  • Are the methods clearly described?
  • Are the results clearly described?
  • Does the article comprehensively and critically evaluate an existing problem in the context of the available literature?
  • Does the article require language editing?
  • Does the introduction clearly describe the rationale for the case in light of the available literature?
  • Does the introduction describe the rationale for the study in the context of the available literature?
  • Does the manuscript require language editing?
  • If relevant, does the article suggest a possible solution to the problem?
  • If relevant, have appropriate ethics approval and informed consent been obtained?
  • Is conflict of interest stated?
  • Is the abstract written in such a way that it conveys the major theme of the article?
  • Is the abstract written in such a way that it conveys the major theme of the paper?
  • Is the case adequately described?
  • Is the catalogue number of antibodies mentioned?
  • Is the discussion well-balanced in light of the available literature and the research findings?
  • Is the intended message for fellow practitioners obvious?
  • Is the number of samples, number of repeats, equipment and chemicals used clearly mentioned?
  • Is there any indication of scientific misconduct, for example data fabrication and figure manipulation?
  • Where relevant, have appropriate ethics approval and informed consent been obtained?

Analytics and Tracking {📊}

  • Google Analytics
  • Google Analytics 4
  • Google Tag Manager
  • Google Universal Analytics

Libraries {📚}

  • Bootstrap
  • FontAwesome
  • jQuery
  • jQuery module (jquery)

Emails and Hosting {✉️}

Mail Servers:

  • aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt4.aspmx.l.google.com

Name Servers:

  • kirk.ns.cloudflare.com
  • tori.ns.cloudflare.com

CDN Services {📦}

  • Cloudflare
  • Jsdelivr

5.08s.