Ethical Standards

Contents

 

Preamble

Machine Graphics & Vision accepts and implements the rules of publishing ethics according to the best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). You can read on the Core Practices of COPE in their web page.

The fundamental rules of ethics concerning the processes of reviewing, editorial requirements, quality assurance and counteracting the phenomena of plagiarism, automatic generation of texts, ghostwriting and guest authorship in Machine Graphics & Vision are as follows.

Ghostwriting

The Editors treat the phenomena of ghostwriting and guest authorship as a sign of scientific dishonesty. Submitting a declaration signed by the authors that the phenomena of ghostwriting and guest authorship are absent in the publication is a condition for it being published.

See also the section on Dealing with Misconduct and the following sections.

Anti-Plagiarism Procedure

The editorial office of Machine Graphics & Vision is committed to publishing only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere. The originality of the paper is checked using the Similarity Check – provided by Crossref and powered by iThenticate—Similarity Check before being sent for peer review.

The similarity report is assessed by the handling editor. A high overall similarity index or a significant overlap with a single source triggers a detailed editorial review. The editor considers the context of each match (e.g. correctly cited quotations, standard methodology descriptions, or reference lists are not treated as plagiarism).

See also the section on Dealing with Misconduct and the following sections.

Generation with AI

The editorial board of MG&V recognizes that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, including generative systems, can support the creation and publication of scholarly works, e.g. by improving the 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 process: authors, reviewers, and editors are fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and reliability of the materials entrusted to them.

The paper is checked against the direct generation of the contents with AI tools. Typical errors committed by generative AI, like logical inconsistencies, discontinuities or lack of explanations in mathematical formulas, literature references or graphical elements inconsistent with the text, erroneous literature references, numerical values given without justification, etc., detected either by the editors or by the reviewers, will trigger a detailed editorial review with respect to possible irresponsible generation with AI. We accept only the texts actually written by the Authors. AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author.

If the presentation and analysis of the results obtained with the use of Artificial Intelligence tools is an element of the contents of a paper, then these tools, their parameters, and their input and output should be duly described and separated from the texts written by the Authors.

See also the section on Dealing with Misconduct and the following sections.

Copyright

Submission of a paper for publication in MG&V is taken to imply that the paper was not previously published, and neither is being considered for publication or is being submitted for publication elsewhere. In the case of the previously published conference proceedings, the publication is admitted providing that the publication submitted to MG&V contains a substantial amount of new material with respect to the conference version, for example, extensions and integration of the theory, extension of the experimental material, extended validation of the concept. All the relevant previous conference publications should be duly cited and the content added with respect to the conference version should be clearly indicated in the paper. The Author(s) should make it clear that the publisher of the conference material does not exclude the publication of extended versions.

It is taken to imply that permission for publication, if needed, has been granted by the appropriate sources. If the manuscript contains any "copyrighted material" the task of obtaining the necessary permissions from the copyright owner(s) is the author(s)'s responsibility. This concerns in particular, but not exclusively, the images and diagrams contained in the manuscript.

Within the publication process, the Author(s) grant the Publisher a non-exclusive license to use the work by signing  the License Agreement while retaining their copyright and the right to reuse the work for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

See also the following section on Dealing with Misconduct and the next sections.

Dealing with Misconduct

The Editors treat the phenomena of plagiarism, submitting AI-generated texts as the Authors' own work, ghostwriting, as well as the cases of infringement of copyright, as a sign of scientific dishonesty. If serious misconduct in this respect is discovered, at any stage – before or after publication, the manuscript is rejected or the published article is retracted, in accordance with COPE guidelines. If serious misconduct is discovered, the cases will be exposed, including the notifying of the authors' institution. Submitting a declaration signed by the authors that the above phenomena are absent in the publication is a condition for it being published.

Reporting the Cases of Misconduct

Justified cases of misconduct in relation to these standards can be reported primarily by the reviewers in the normal course of the reviewing process. After the paper is published, such justified cases can be reported to the Editors by any interested party, by contacting the Editorial Office.

Corrections and Retractions

Duties of the Authors

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Duties of the Publisher

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Financing and Conflicts of Interest

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.

Reviews

For assessing each publication, at least two independent reviewers are appointed, while at least one of them is not employed at the institution of the Publisher – the Institute of Information Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW (Instytut Informatyki Technicznej SGGW).

As a model solution it is accepted that the autor(s) and reviewer(s) do not know their identities (double-blind review proces).

In the case of doubts the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. As a case of conflict of interest the following relations between an author and a reviewer are understood:

  • direct personal relation (kinship, legal relations, conflict);
  • professional dependence;
  • direct scientific cooperation during the last two years before the review is prepared.

In the case the number of positive and negative reviews are equal, the publication is subjected to an additional independent review.

The review is prepared in writing and is concluded with a univocal conclusion that a paper is accepted for publication or rejected.

In the case the paper is accepted for publication after substantial changes or complementing, it is subjected to a next review.

The rules of review are made publicly known in the web page of the journal – see the detailed Review Policy in the REVIEWERS PANEL.

The names of the reviewers of the specific papers are not disclosed; once per year the journal announces the list of names of its cooperating reviewers.

Editorial Integrity Policy

When a manuscript is authored or co-authored by a member of the Editorial Team or the Editorial Board, the selection of reviewers and all editorial decisions regarding that manuscript are handled exclusively by another member of the Editorial Team who is not involved in the submission. Manuscripts submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members are not given any priority over other submissions and are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript. Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration of the author's own submission.

In cases where no uninvolved Editor is available to manage the process, an external Guest Editor or a member of the Scientific Committee with no conflict of interest may be appointed for this purpose.

Anonymity

To enable double-blindness of the refereeing process, the paper submitted for consideration should not contain the authors' names, affiliations and addresses, as well as possible thanks and information about funding. These information items should be placed on a separate page, and the text proper should not contain any such elements, also in page headers or footers. If the references could reveal the identity of the author(s), they should be anonymized. If the author(s) fail to do exclude the identifying information in the paper, the Editors can do this without noticing the author(s) or can ask the corresponding author to do so.

Corresponding Author

The author actually submitting the manuscript must enclose a note (cover letter) saying that the paper is submitted together with the listed co-authors. Such note is taken to imply that the submitting author has obtained their consent for submitting the paper. One of the authors (e.g., the submitting one) should be indicated as the contact person. Otherwise, all correspondence will be sent to the author who sent the submission or in case of ambiguity to the author listed as the first one.