Opera Medica et Physiologica

OM&P Policies and Malpractice Statement


  1. OM&P follows the currently accepted practices on publication ethics. We adhere to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines recommended for use worldwide by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
    For more detail please visit the following resources:
    - https://publicationethics.org/ - the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
    - https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/ - the Council of Science Editors (CSE);
    - http://www.wame.org/ - the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
  2. OM&P shall not allow dual submission.
  3. Neither shall OM&P tolerate data manipulation, copyright infringement, attempts to hamper the peer review process or failure to declare conflicts of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
  4. Once the above instances of malpractice are detected and confirmed as intentional:
    • they will be reported to those found guilty of malpractice, as well as the Editorial Board and the Editor-in- Chief;
    • the submission will be withheld; and
    • the persons found guilty of malpractice will not be allowed to publish in the OM&P (or participate in its publication process) for two years.


To ensure that only verifiable high quality papers are accepted, all the submissions undergo an extensive review by the Editorial Board and a pool of OM&P reviewers. Referees are carefully selected from the worldwide research community. Whereas the authors may suggest reviewers during the manuscript submission process, the ultimate responsibility for the referee appointment lies with the Editor-in- Chief.
OM&P opts for a single-blind peer review procedure with the reviewer identities blinded to those of the authors, but not vice versa, throughout the 5-stage process below.

First, prior to starting the refereeing process, the editors pre-screen submissions to check that they comply with the OM&P scope, are of potential interest to the readers, and have high relevance. Modifications may be requested from the authors at this stage.
Second, the editors will normally select two referees – experts in the area – for the submissions approved in the initial phase, and forward the manuscripts for review.
Third, the papers are under review. At the end of this stage, the reviewers are expected to make one of the following suggestions to the editors:

  • Accept the manuscript in its current form.
  • Accept with revisions, major or minor.
  • Revise and resubmit for review.
  • Reject and resubmit.
  • Reject explaining the reasons.

Next, reviewer suggestions go to the OM&P editors who will make their decision and, through the Editorial Office, notify the authors of the outcome of their papers with the reviewer comments attached.
The manuscript may only be accepted if two concordant positive reviews are received, or upon the Editor’s-in- Chief decision.
Finally, the Editor-in- Chief will check the final version to forward the manuscript for publication after synchronizing with the technical editors.

As for the time frame, the whole round of OM&P peer review averages 4 weeks but may vary according to the specificity of the manuscript.


All the parties to the publication process – the authors, co-authors, reviewers and editors – are expected to declare any conflict of interest in the cases outlined below:

  • whenever a reviewer is a collaborator or a co-worker with the author(s);
  • whenever a reviewer is in a position which prevents him/her from giving an objective opinion of the work;
  • whenever any party involved may use the manuscript commercially or otherwise.

We kindly ask the authors to disclose:

  • any conflict of interest including any financial or personal relationships which might prejudice their work; and
  • the actual sources of financial support for their project (in an Acknowledgements section).

OM&P would also be grateful if the reviewers should operate in accordance with the Nolan Principles of public life.