The editorial board of “OphthaTherapy. Therapies in Ophthalmology” implements standards of ethical conduct at all stages of the publishing process in order to ensure the highest scientific quality, and to counteract dishonest practices, including plagiarism and ghostwriting. Our actions are based on the guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) as well as on the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), constituting a best-practice model for contemporary medical editors. 


Members of the editorial team (hereinafter referred to as “Editors”) take decisions on the acceptance and date of publication of a given manuscript. Their decisions are based on the submitted reviews. They act in a sustainable, objective and fair manner, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or geographic origin of the authors involved.

None of the Editors may disclose information on the submitted works to any other person but the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial consultants.

Editors are entrusted with the task of ensuring ethical conduct on the part of all persons involved in the preparation of the journal.

The principles listed below are binding for all members of the Editorial Board as well as Guest Editors.



If you receive a proposal to review a manuscript, consider it thoroughly, whether you have the necessary specialist expertise, before you provide your final answer. Agree to it only when you are certain that it is the case.



A good review has to be impartial. Before you take the decision on accepting a manuscript for review, look into any potential conflicts which might impact your perceptions, including personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious conflicts. If you are not certain, whether a conflict is in place, report your concerns to the Editor.



It is good to respond to a manuscript review proposal within a reasonable period of time, even if you are unable to carry out the review yourself. It will shorten the waiting time for publication. If you believe you have the necessary competences to review a particular manuscript, and there are no conflicts of interest, consider the timeframe proposed by the editorial team. If you believe that the time you have been given in insufficient, inform the Editorial Board about a more realistic deadline for the review. Always inform the Editors without delay, if your situation changes, resulting in your inability to deliver the review, or in a change in schedule. If you cannot perform the review, recommend other reviewers to the Editorial Board.