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 the basic guidelines of COPE in one concise presentation "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors".

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.

Originality, Plagiarism and Generation with AI

MG&V accepts only original, previously unpublished material. The originality of the paper is checked with the use of anti-plagiarism services.

The paper is also checked against the use of texts generated with Artificial Intelligence tools. We accept only the texts written by the Authors. This does not exclude the use of services which support the Authors in spell checking and grammar improvement.

If the presentation and analysis of the results obtained with the use of Artifical Intelligence tools is an elment 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.

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.

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, the cases will be exposed, including the notifying of the relevant entities (employers of the authors). 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.

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 uderstood:

  • 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 one review is positive and one is negative, the publication is subjected to a third 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 and the review form are are made publicly known in the web page of the journal.
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.

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.