AI Policy

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Contents

Introduction

The editorial board of Machine GRAPHICS & VISION recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including generative systems, can support the creation and publication of scholarly works, e.g., by improving language, readability, and text structure. At the same time, AI cannot replace the creative, critical, and responsible contribution of humans to scientific research.

All individuals involved in the publishing proces authors, reviewers, and editors are fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and reliability of the materials entrusted to them. The use of AI must be explicitly disclosed in the article, and AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author.

Because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased, humans are ultimately responsible for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of any content generated with assistance of AI. Therefore, authors, reviewers, and editors/publishers should adhere to the following principles when using AI/LLM.

This policy defines the principles for the responsible and transparent use of AI in the publication process.

Definitions

  • AI-assisted tools – tools used for language correction, translations, grammar checking, or improving the clarity and structure of the text; these tools do not independently create scientific content.
  • Generative AI-systems – tools capable of creating new content (e.g., text, images, data), such as large language models (LLMs) or image generators.

I. PRINCIPLES FOR AUTHORS

1.1. Permitted Uses

AI may only be used for the following purposes.

  • Language correction, translations, and stylistic improvements.
  • Enhancing the clarity and organization of text.
  • Generating charts and visualizations based on the author’s own data (similar to other software, e.g., Excel, Gnuplot).
  • Adjusting brightness, contrast, or color balance in illustrations and images, provided that the changes do not obscure or remove any information from the original
  • Creating or modifying illustrations, images, and artworks if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research plan or methodology (e.g., in AI-assisted imaging methods for generating or interpreting research data) and is fully described in the methodology section (including tool name, version, and scope of use).

1.2. Prohibited Uses

AI must not be used for the following purposes.

  • Creating substantive scientific content, analyses, or graphical abstracts.
  • Creating or modifying illustrations, images, and artworks when such use is not part of the research plan or methodology.

1.3. Disclosure Requirement

Any use of generative AI must be clearly disclosed in the article (e.g., in the “Materials and Methods” section or a separate declaration). Authors should specify:

  • the name and version of the tool,
  • the date of use,
  • the purpose and scope of use (including prompts used, if applicable).

1.4. Statement

When submitting a manuscript, authors are required to declare whether and to what extent AI tools were used. Failure to provide this declaration may result in manuscript rejection.

Authors should carefully review and edit the AI-generated content as the output can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations. Referencing AI-generated material as the primary source is not acceptable.

Nondisclosure of AI use may require corrective action and may be construed as misconduct in some circumstances.

1.4. Responsibility and Consequences

Authors bear full responsibility for the content and originality of the article. Undisclosed or improper use of AI (e.g., generating incorrect content, plagiarism, misleading information) will be considered a breach of publication ethics and may result in:

  • rejection of the manuscript,
  • retraction of a published paper,
  • sanctions in accordance with COPE guidelines.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to use AI content detection tools as part of the editorial assessment of submitted manuscripts, provided that the confidentiality of the submitted materials is ensured.

II. PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEWERS

Reviewers must adhere to the journal’s stated policy on the use of AI or request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review. Reviewers who use AI in their review should disclose its use to the journal and ensure the content is appropriate and valid as AI can generate output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

2.1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all materials received as confidential. Entering manuscripts or review reports into AI tools is prohibited, as it violates copyright, confidentiality, and data protection.

2.2. Scope of Use

AI cannot be used to evaluate the scholarly content of manuscripts. Review reports must fully reflect the reviewer’s knowledge and critical thinking.

2.3. Limitations

Preparing reviews using AI, in whole or in part, is prohibited. Reports generated in this way will not be considered, and the reviewer may be excluded from further collaboration.

III. PRINCIPLES FOR EDITORS

Many forms of use AI can be very helpful, especially for those authoring content not in their primary language. Nonetheless, editors should query authors and authors should disclose if and how LLM and AI were used. In all use cases, authors should check the accuracy and validity of their content before submission. Editors should be vigilant that authors may not disclose AI use when queried. Editors and reviewers should not upload submitted manuscripts into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured without authors’ explicit permission

3.1. Confidentiality

Editors may not use AI to process manuscripts or handle confidential correspondence with authors or reviewers.

3.2. Decision-Making Process

All editorial decisions must be based on the editor’s knowledge, competence, and responsibility; AI cannot replace this process.

3.3. Supportive Uses

AI-assisted tools (e.g., for finding reviewers) may be used provided ethical principles and confidentiality are maintained. AI must not be used to summarize unpublished research or edit confidential documents.

IV. PROCEDURES IN CASE OF MISUSE

  • Any suspicion of undisclosed or improper use of AI will be assessed individually and handled in accordance with the journal’s internal procedures and relevant COPE guidelines.
  • Where concerns arise regarding the integrity, originality, or reliability of a submitted or published manuscript, the Editors may request an explanation from the Authors and conduct an additional editorial assessment.
  • Depending on the nature and seriousness of the confirmed misconduct, the Editors may reject the manuscript, request corrections, issue an Expression of Concern, or retract a published article, in accordance with applicable COPE guidelines.
  • In cases of suspected or confirmed serious scientific misconduct, the Editors may consider notifying the Authors’ affiliated institution(s) and/or relevant research funders, where appropriate.
  • If an investigation is conducted by the Authors’ institution, the Editors may seek information about its outcome and, where appropriate, inform readers of the outcome.
  • Reviewers and Editors who identify reasonable concerns regarding possible violations of the journal’s AI policy should report them to the Editorial Board and maintain the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript throughout the process.
  • AI detection tools may be used as an auxiliary element of the editorial assessment. Their results alone shall not constitute sufficient evidence of scientific misconduct or grounds for rejection.
  • Any correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction resulting from confirmed misconduct will be handled in accordance with applicable COPE guidelines and will be clearly linked to the original publication.

V. FINAL PROVISIONS

AI may support the publication process but can never replace the responsible and creative work of researchers. The foundation of Machine GRAPHICS & VISION publishing activities is ethics, transparency, and scientific integrity.

VI. POLICY REVIEW AND CHANGES

This policy is subject to periodic review and updates to align with evolving standards and practices in scholarly publishing.