Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration; except communications submitted to Congress, if they have at least 30% of new content (an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The contributions of the paper are related to Operations Management or Human Resources Management as outlined in the Focus & Scope.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, and the submission file is in Microsoft Word or OpenOffice document file format based on this Word Template.
  • The instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • The author/s guarantee(s) the authorship of the documents presented, as well as any text or image. If the work has significant contributions from more than one author, all should appear as co-authors and should accurately reflect who did the work. All authors meet the journal's criteria for authorship and that nobody who meets these criteria has been omitted from the list.
  • Information on the specific contribution of each of the authors is included in the "authors contribution" section.
  • Information on the source of funding is included (indicating the funding agency (s) and the code (s) of the project (s) within the framework (s) of which the research has been developed), or it is indicated that "no funding has been received for the development of the research.". This data must be referenced by the authors in the acknowledgments section and in the metadata that are entered in the submission process.
  • Do not use acronyms in the text (acronyms are welcome in tables or figures, adding a legend in each of them. But only heavily coined acronyms should be used in the text. When in doubt, avoid acronyms and use whole words in the text).
  • For each submission to WPOM, please add the codes of Sustainable Development Goals supported by the paper (see For example:
    SDG03 Good Health and Well-Being
    SDG09 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Author Guidelines

The journal WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management does not have either article submission charges or article processing charges (APCs).

Authorship credit should be based only on: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions (1), (2), and (3) must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.

Authors should list research funders on research papers, which should be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgment.

It is considered only those works that have not been published in scientific journals or have not been submitted for consideration in another journal. Except for papers presented at conferences that should be extended (at least 30% new content) to be admitted, this submission has to have a footnote, on the first page, with a complete reference about the conference where was presented the preliminary version of the work.

Word Template

Only heavily coined acronyms should be used in the text. When in doubt, avoid acronyms and use whole words in the text.

Guidelines for writing a WPOM article:
• Purpose of the paper: What are the reasons for writing the paper or the aims of the research?
• Related work: What is the key research and literature related to this work?
• Design/Methodology/Approach: How are the objectives achieved? Include the primary method(s) used for the research. What is the approach to the topic, and what is the theoretical or subject scope of the paper?
• Findings: What was found in the course of the work? This will refer to analysis, discussion or results.
• Research limitations/implications: Future research direction and identified limitations in the research process.
• Practical implications: What outcomes and implications for practice, applications, and consequences are identified?
• Originality/Value of the paper: What is new in the paper? State the value of the paper and to whom.

How long is the average review time for the journal?

The review process can vary, but it usually is expected to finish in 3-6 weeks. It can be extended if the reviewer needs more time or it is difficult to find an appropriate reviewer.

Research Articles

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

Data Paper

Data paper. Evaluation criteria:

(additional information: Marin-Garcia, J. A. (2021). Three-stage publishing to support evidence-based management practice. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management12(2), 56–95.

  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

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)


Protocol paper (generic). Evaluation criteria

(additional information: Marin-Garcia, J. A. (2021). Three-stage publishing to support evidence-based management practice. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management12(2), 56–95.

  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

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

Case Report Papers

Case Report Paper. Evaluation criteria

(additional information: Marin-Garcia, J. A., Garcia-Sabater, J. P., & Maheut, J. (2022). Case report papers guidelines: Recommendations for the reporting of case studies or action research in Business Management. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management13(2), 108–137.

  1. Title: The problem, diagnosis, or intervention of primary focus followed by the words “case report”.
  2. Key Words: include "case report paper" and 2 to 10 key words that identify diagnoses, conditions, problems, or interventions in the case report, the methodology (case study, action research, etc.) and main uses for the case report (learning, practice, etc.).
  3. Abstract:
    • Summary: Briefly summarize the case (i.e., the main concerns and important facts) and why the case report adds value in terms of interest and contribution to research and/or practice.
    • Methodology: The primary diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes.
    • Conclusion:  What are one or more takeaways presented in the case report? How can they improve our knowledge of the topic or practices in other organizations?
  4. Introduction: Briefly summarize why the case report is interesting and relevant.
  5. Theoretical background: The main issues to be addressed are the decision making within the organisation, the solutions proposed for situations considered, and the limitations of the available knowledge.
  6. Information about individuals and/or the organization and their relevant concerns:
    • Preserving confidentiality, include anonymized people (e.g., demographic details) and/or organization-specific information (economic activity, ownership, size, etc.).
    • Primary concerns and symptoms of problems (specific details for diagnosis will be treated in the diagnostic assessment section).
    • Main stakeholders including relevant organizational information.
  7. Timeline: Historical and current information from the situation organized into a timeline (e.g., a figure or table).
    • Relevant past interventions and their outcomes.
    • Detailed follow-up of the current intervention indicating actions and the duration of the actions.
  8. Diagnostic Assessment:
    • Facts and Findings: Describe the significant facts and important findings supporting the concerns.
    • Diagnostic methods and sources including how the information was obtained (e.g., action research, observation, in-depth interviews, surveys, information provided by organization or public sources, etc.).
    • Diagnostic challenges encountered.
    • Diagnosis, i.e., the identified condition, situation, or problem derived from analysing its symptoms or causes.
    • Forecast of how things are expected to develop if no intervention is taken, where applicable.
  1. Intervention (without intervention see protocol papers ) :
    • Types of interventions/tools/programs deployed to solve the situation.
    • Administration of the intervention (e.g., coverage, investment, duration, etc.).
  • 10 Follow-up and Outcomes:
    • Organizational/departmental/individual assessed outcomes, if available.
    • Important follow-up monitoring or controls and other results.
    • Intervention adherence or resistance and how this was assessed.
    • Adverse and unanticipated events. Changes in planned interventions including explanations.
    • Organization/individual perspective (optional). People in the organization should share their perspective on the intervention(s) affecting them.
  • 11 Discussion and conclusions:
    • Discussion of the relevant managerial literature. Research implications.
    • Strengths and limitations in the approach to this case.
    • In what other cases or situations could the findings of the analyzed case be applied?
    • The rationale for any conclusions.
  • 12 Managerial implications: The primary takeaways from the case report (without references) in one paragraph.
  • 13 Informed Consent: People in the organization should give their informed consent. (Provide if requested).

Teaching experiences based on action research

 Teaching experiences. Evaluation criteria

(Additional information: Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Alfalla-Luque, R. (2021). Teaching experiences based on action research: a guide to publishing in scientific journals. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management12(1), 42–50.

  1. Background for AR
    1. Objective: your problem, what you are concerned about, what you want to achieve with the experience
    2. Definition of best teaching practice being implemented to contribute to the objective
    3. Description of the context in which the implementation of the best teaching practice is taking place
    4. Subject, degree, and study program to which it is applied
    5. Students (most relevant aspects: age, disposition, abilities, etc.)
    6. Other subjects or teaching staff that affect the implementation
    7. Aspects of the evaluation system related to the experience
  2. Previous publications
    1. Prior evidence for the ‘best teaching practice’ most probably being ‘best teaching practice’, whether in general terms, in conditions similar to the context, or in different contexts
  3. Contribution/relevance of the work
    1. Academics (teaching research)
    2. For university lecturers (in their capacity as teachers)
  4. Work action plan/protocol
    1. Teaching experience description and timeline (in great detail and, when necessary, with links to materials, dynamics, appendices, etc., useful for its implementation)
      1. Description of preparation
      2. Description of development
      3. Description of evaluation or closure when concluded
    2. Triangulation of evidence of the experience (provide various information sources as far as possible: teacher, colleagues, students, teaching records, data from other courses, etc.)
    3. Evidence of the learning outcomes, students’ thoughts on the experience, etc.
  1. Analysis of information and evaluation of the outcomes of the experience
    1. Number of hours required by teachers and students for the experience
    2. Aspects that did not turn out as expected (both positive and negative)
    3. Unforeseen issues that arose and how they were solved
    4. Would you repeat the experience?  Why? Would you change anything? What?
  2. Limitations, future research, and planned dissemination
    1. Can the experience be extrapolated to other contexts? Which? Why?
    2. What new uncertainties have arisen after the experience, and what would it be interesting to investigate in the future?
    3. What dissemination actions do you have planned?

Privacy Statement

Any personal data you provide will be incorporated into the file called Revistas UPV of Universitat Politècnica de València exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be available for any other purpose or to any other person. You can exercise your rights of access, rectification, cancellation and opposition in relation to the data by writing to Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s / n, 46022 Valencia.