Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope


The WPOM papers include advances and results of research articles. The goal is to produce capsules of knowledge: addressing a very specific subject, developed with an impeccable academic methodology, so that constitutes in itself a contribution to the area.

The opinions are a responsibility of the authors.

The aim of this publication is to facilitate the access to the academic debate of the research that subsequently will turn into other scientific projects. Thus they can cite and protect against plagiarism the ideas written, without damage of being spread in other media or publications that the author considers to be suitable.


The aim of WPOM is to publish theoretical and empirical articles related to Operations Management and Human Resources Management:

  • Assembly line Design
  • Production and operations management
  • Time study and work design
  • Transport routing optimization
  • Material Handling and Warehousing. Design and Operation
  • Production planning in distributed manufacturing
  • Continuous improvement tools (kaizen,TPM, JIT-KANBAN, TQM, POKA-YOKEs - KITTINGs, Value Stream Mapping, Visual Factory, KARAKURI)
  • Performance measures in industrial settings
  • TeamWork
  • Continuous Improvement
  • Leadership
  • Participative Management
  • High Involvement Work Practices
  • Higher Education Teaching Innovation on Industrial Engineering and operations management
  • Lean Manufacturing
  • Logistics
  • Quality Management
  • Quantitative Methods
  • Operations Scheduling and Sequenzing
  • Corporate Social Responsability
  • Other Human Resource Management practices related to operations management (job description, recruitment, selection, compensation, training, talent management)
  • Job design
  • Submissions approved by Research on Higher Education Learning-Collaboration; HRM-Collaboration, or OM-Collaboration

WPOM support three stages publication. Protocols, data papers and articles are wellcomed. WPOM encourage the submission of replication studies, particularly of research published in this journal. When possible, replication studies are reviewed in two stages following the protocol paper format. In particular, the first stage of replication or review (protocol paper) is conducted prior to the data being collected or, for existing datasets, before the outcomes are observed. Contributions can adopt quantitative or qualitative methodological approaches. WPOM selects the articles to be published with a double bind, peer review system, following the practices of good scholarly journals. WPOM is published six-monthly exclusively on-line, and following an open access policy. WPOM defends that open access publishing fosters the advance of scientific knowledge, making it available to everyone.

WPOM publishes articles in English and Spanish.


Section Policies

Research Articles

Artículos de investigación sometidos a un proceso de doble revisión ciega.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Data Paper

Data paper. Evaluation criteria:

  1. Title or key words that specifically contain data paper
  2. Introduction presents the general and specific context of the research, the research question (s) that led to the data collection, the value and / or potential of the data
  3. Method. It is explained in detail and sufficient clarity, the methods and conditions (of time, space, etc.) of collection, sampling methodology, materials used. Ethical Statement is present when needed
  4. Analysis that guarantees the quality of the data or measurements
  5. Data set description. Formats, data structure, language, domains or range of values that the data can take, explanations of data with special values, identifier of the data set that can be the DOI, data deposit (link and type)
  6. Guidelines for access (with link to data repository), interpretation, and reuse or replication of the data
  7. Future lines of research using the data set

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SLR protocol

Systematic literature review protocol paper. Evaluation Criteria:

  1. Is it understandable by someone who is not an expert?
  2. Are all the "variables" properly defined?
  3. Does it describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. (SLRTemp2a)
  4. Does it provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). (SLRTemp2b)
  5. If extending previous research on the topic, does it explain why a new study is needed
  6. Specify and justify basic strategy: manual search, automated search, or mixed
  7. Identify the inclusion criteria for primary studies b) identify the exclusion criteria
  8. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched
  9. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated
  10. For manual searches, identify the journals and conferences to be searched
  11. Specify the time period to be covered by the review and any reasons for your choice
  12. Identify any ancillary search procedures, e.g. asking leading researchers or research groups, or accessing their web sites; or checking reference lists of primary studies
  13. Specify how the search process is to be evaluated (e.g. against a known subset of papers; or against the results from a previous systematic review)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Protocol paper (generic). Evaluation criteria

  1. Title and/or keywords specifically containing the phrase protocol paper
  2. Explicit definitions of the main variables of the study
  3. Identification of previous relevant literature related to the addressed questions. It is not necessary to develop these in detail, only to compile the main works and use them to justify the relevance of the research questions
  4. Research questions to be addressed by the research
  5. Justification of why the research is relevant, the contribution to academics and/or practitioners
  6. Description of the research design discussing in detail the proposed methodology for data collection and analysis and including a step-by-step guide and a justification of the analysis tools and procedures
  7. Optionally, a pilot test demonstrating the feasibility of the proposal
  8. Expected timelines
  9. Favourable report from an ethics committee, as required

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Professional Issues

Papers examine the relationships between OM and other disciplines and professions, with emphasis on the resolution of practial issues to improve organizational performance

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

WPOM will select its articles following a double blind, peer review process. Once the editorial team has checked that the contribution follows the formatting and content author guidelines, it is sent to two anonymous reviewers. Grounded on reviewer's recommendations, the editor will communicate the results of the evaluation to the corresponding author. The editor will communicate the overall result of the evaluation (rejected, accepted or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments. If the paper has been accepted with modifications, authors should send back to the journal a new version of the article, that will be reviewed again by the same team of reviewers. Moreover, the authors can attach a letter to the editor, which should indicate the modifications made in the article following the editor's and reviewer's comments. If the authors decide not to follow a particular reviewer's instruction, they can expose in the same letter their reasons for not doing so.


Publication Frequency

WPOM is published two times a year (June and December), on a semestral (six months) basis. The two issues of one year are the two numbers of one volumen. Journal items can be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

From 2022, WPOM journal will change its publication frequency to January and July.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



WPOM- Working Papers on Operations Management is indexed and abstracted in:

  • e-Revistas (Plataforma Open Acces de Revistas Científicas Electrónicas Españolas y Latinoamericanas)
  • Index Copernicus
  • European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences - ERIH PLUS
  • JCR: ESCI-WOS (Clarivate) Emerging Sources Citation Index
  • Google Scholar Metrics
Pending to start indexing process in:
  • Scopus


Ethic and best practices

These Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics have been written to offer authors a framework for developing and implementing their own publication ethics policies and systems. Editors from WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management trust peer reviewers to provide fair assessments, authors trust editors to select appropriate peer reviewers, and readers put their trust in the peer-review process.

Editors from WPOM believe good decisions and strong editorial processes designed to manage these interests will foster a sustainable and efficient publishing system, which will benefit academic societies, journal editors, authors, research funders, readers, and publishers. Good publication practices do not develop by chance, and will become established only if they are actively promoted.

Basic aspects of transparencyAuthors of the papers
Publication of papers not published beforePromoting research integrity
Peer-review systemsAppeals
Conflicts of interestEditorial independence
AccuracyAcademic debate
Responsible publication practicesPlagiarism and copyright
Protecting intellectual propertyPeer reviewer conduct and intellectual property

Basic aspects of transparency

Readers have a right to know who funded a research project or the publication of a document. Research funders should be listed on all research papers. Funding for any type of publication, for example, by a commercial company, charity or government department, should be stated within the publication. Other sources of support for publications should be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgment. (Authors Guidelines)

Authors of the papers

All published work should be attributed to one or more authors. All authors that are reflected in the work must have actively contributed to it and if possible, reflect the part made at the end of each summary. If no make explicit the contribution is considered that all authors have an equivalent contribution in the article. WPOM instructions for authors explain the concepts of academic authorship, setting out which contributions do and do not qualify for authorship.

The editors of WPOM ask for a declaration that all authors meet the journal's criteria for authorship and that nobody who meets these criteria has been omitted from the list (Submission Preparation Checklist, item 6). If an authorship dispute emerges after publication (for example, somebody contacts the editor claiming they should have been an author of a published paper, or requesting that their name be withdrawn from a paper), the editors of WPOM contact the corresponding author and, where possible, the other authors to establish the veracity of the case.

Publication of papers that have not been published before

WPOM considers only work that has not been published elsewhere, except papers presented at conferences that should be extended (at least 30% new content) to be admitted; this submission have to have a footnote, in the first page, with the complete reference about conference where was presented the preliminary version of the work.

One reason for this is that the scientific literature can be skewed by redundant publication, with important consequences, for example, if results are inadvertently included more than once into meta-analyses. WPOM asks authors for a declaration that the submitted work and its essential substance have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere (Authors Guidelines).

Promoting research integrity

Research misconduct

If the editors of WPOM suspect research misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), they should attempt to ensure that this is properly investigated by the appropriate authorities. Peer review sometimes reveals suspicion of misconduct. If peer reviewers raise concerns of serious misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or plagiarism), these should be taken seriously. However, authors have a right to respond to such allegations and for investigations to be carried out with appropriate speed and due diligence.

Protecting the rights of research participants/subjects

Editors of WPOM create publication policies that promote ethical and responsible research practices. If the research has worked with data identifying individuals or organizations, the resulting work must be accompanied by a statement of consent from them. The Editors reserve the right to refuse work if there are doubts about whether proper procedures were followed.

Respecting cultures and heritage

Editors of WPOM exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offence.

Informing readers about research and publication misconduct

Editors inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred. WPOM publishes corrections (errata) when errors could affect the interpretation of data or information, whatever the cause of the error (i.e. arising from author errors or from editorial mishaps). Likewise, WPOM publishes ‘retractions’ if work is proven to be fraudulent, or ‘expressions of concern’ if editors have well-founded suspicions of misconduct. The title of the erratum, retraction, or expression of concern includes the words ‘Erratum’, ‘Retraction’, or ‘Expression of concern’. It is published on a numbered page (print and electronic) and should be listed in the journal's table of contents. It enables the reader to identify and understand the correction in context with the errors made, or explains why the article is being retracted, or explains the editor's concerns about the contents of the article. It is linked electronically with the original electronic publication.

Peer-review systems

Editors of WPOM have a responsibility for ensuring the peer-review process is fair and should aim to minimize bias. Our system is a double blind peer review process. The material that has not been peer reviewed is clearly identified.

If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence, they remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties or there are exceptional circumstances.

Peer reviewer selection and performance

Editors of WPOM have a responsibility to ensure a high standard of objective, unbiased, and timely peer review. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and record the quality and timeliness of their reviews. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive or unconstructive reviews are not used again. Editors of WPOM encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and editors ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where any circumstances might prevent them producing fair peer review.

Timing of publication

Editors of WPOM aim to ensure peer review be an agile process and it can ensure a short time to publish accepted papers, especially when, as judged by the journal's editorial staff, may have important implications.


Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, manifesting to Editors through the channel of communication established in Polipapers platform.

All reports and documents submitted to prevent academic misconduct will be archived in the Polipapers platform (OJS) associated with the publication.   

Conflicts of interest

Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively.

The editors of WPOM require reviewers a statement about conflicts of interest they may have in reviewing assignments.

Editorial independence

Editorial independence is respected. Journal publishers do not interfere with editorial decisions. The relationship between the editor and the journal publisher is set out in a formal contract and an appeal mechanism for disputes is established. Editorial Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, as the publisher of WPOM, works with the journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to: editorial independence; research ethics(including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for research in social sciences); authorship; transparency and integrity (conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards); peer review (for further information concerning responsibilities in relation to peer review process.


The editors of WPOM have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish. WPOM encourages authors and readers to inform them if they discover errors in published work. We publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article. Corrections arising from errors within an article (by authors or journals) are distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct.

Academic debate

WPOM encourages academic debate. WPOM encourages correspondence commenting on published items and should always invite authors to respond to any correspondence before publication. However, authors do not have a right to veto unfavorable comments about their work and they may choose not to respond to criticisms.

Responsible publication practices

Editors attend the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), or other competent authority, if more advice is needed.

Editors of WPOM pursue cases of suspected misconduct that become apparent during the peer-review and publication processes. In instances of confirmed misconduct, editors may consider imposing sanctions on the authors at fault for a period of time. Sanctions must be applied consistently. Before imposing sanctions, editors formally define the conditions in which they will apply (and remove) sanctions, and the processes they will use to do this.

Plagiarism and copyright

WPOM editors and readers have a right to expect that submitted work is the author's own, that it has not been plagiarized (i.e. taken from other authors without permission, if permission is required) and that copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced). We ask authors to declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner. To support the review of the reviewers before a possible plagiarism, Similarity Check or similar platform will be used and all the papers presented will be checked.

In case of plagiarism, editors will contact to authors work's to clarify the circumstances. Authors could state the situation through the e-mail: ojsadmin@upvnet.upv.es.

Protecting intellectual property

WPOM authors have a right to protect and conserve their intellectual property and they grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons.

Peer reviewer conduct and intellectual property

Authors are entitled to expect that peer reviewers or other individuals privy to the work an author submits to WPOM will not steal their research ideas or plagiarize their work. WPOM explains to peer reviewers that material is in confidence until it has not been published. Editors of WPOM protect peer reviewers from authors and, even if peer reviewer identities are revealed, should discourage authors from contacting peer reviewers directly, especially if misconduct is suspected.


DORA - Declaration on Research Assessment

The journal WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management agree to The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), in particular the publisher aspects:

  • Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g., 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor, SCImago, h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.
  • Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.
  • Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.
  • Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
  • Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.


Plagiarism Policy

WPOM editors and readers have a right to expect that submitted work is the author's own, that it has not been plagiarized (i.e. taken from other authors without permission, if permission is required) and that copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced). We ask authors to declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner. Papers are revised with Similarity Check to avoid plagiarism. In case of plagiarism, the author could state the situation through the e-mail: ojsadmin@upvnet.upv.es.

If the editors of WPOM suspect research misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), they should attempt to ensure that this is properly investigated by the appropriate authorities. Peer review sometimes reveals suspicion of misconduct.


Interoperability protocol

WPOM - Working Papers on Operations Management journal is accessible through the OAI-PMH protocol (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) based on the Dublin Core scheme, for its metadata transmission over internet.


This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 1989-9068   https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom