Close
Help
Need Help?



Published Author Endorses Cancer Informatics

Posted Tue, Jun, 21,2011

In a recent testimonial for Cancer Informatics, Dr Seppo Karrila comments on the speed, quality and visibility of his recently published article:

"Compared with other journals we considered for publishing, Cancer Informatics provided extremely rapid but quality turnaround from draft submission to a flawlessly typeset final publication.  Moreover, sharing the article is now as easy as sharing a link with no subscriptions required, and additional code and data files are equally accessible, supporting reproducible research.  Because it has published many of our references we feel confident that our target readership must follow the journal.  This is further evidenced by the steadily growing number of views that are kindly provided as follow-up. A good combination of advantages with efficient and professional execution!"

Read or download Dr Karrila's open access article "A Comparison of Methods for Data-Driven Cancer Outlier Discovery, and An Application Scheme to Semisupervised Predictive Biomarker Discovery"

share on

Our Service Promise

  • Prompt Processing (3 Weeks to Editorial Decision)
  • Fair, Independent Peer Review
  • High Visibility & Extensive Indexing
What Your Colleagues Say About Libertas Academica
I was requested to contribute a review. The objectives, timelines and process were all extremely reasonable and fit in well with my knowledge base and my work as well as my schedule. The process was quite seamless and no paper was ever exchanged--everything was completed on-line. Thanks for the opportunity to make this contribution.
Dr Michael E. Trigg (North Wales, PA, USA)
More Testimonials

Quick Links




Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers.




SUBJECT HUBS
Author Survey Results
author_survey_results
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.
See Our Results