Review Policy

Contents

 

Preamble

Machine Graphics & Vision accepts and implements the rules of publishing ethics according to the Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – see the section on Ethical Standards.

Review Form

A preview of the review form can be downloaded by clicking here. The preview may slightly differ from the form currently in use.

Reviewing Process

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

  1. By submitting the paper, its authors confirm their consent for the paper to be reviewed.
  2. The editorial staff makes a preliminary assessment of the submitted manuscript taking into account the following criteria: thematic field of the paper, description of the methodology and results of own research, bibliography, layout and length of the paper. If this preliminary assessment yields a positive result, the paper will be evaluated by at least two specialists in the given area.
  3. The Editors treat the phenomena of plagiarism, using content generated with AI tools as Authors' own content, ghostwriting and guest authorship 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.
  4. For assessing each publication, at least two independent reviewers are appointed, while at least one of them is not employed at the Institute of Information Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW (Instytut Informatyki Technicznej SGGW).
  5. As a model solution it is accepted that the autor(s) and reviewer(s) do not know their identities (double-blind review proces).
  6. 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.
  7. The reviews are intended to judge the suitability of the reviewed paper for publication, on the basis of the paper's relevance to the overall aims and scope of MG&V, as well as its quality: originality, technical quality, importance and readability. The reviewers are requested to use the review form made available to them in the review system of MG&V. The detailed criteria and questions to be addressed in the review can be seen in the preview of the review form presented in the beginning of this section.
  8. The reviews are made in rounds. In each round of reviews the paper is subjected to at least two reviews, made in parallel.
  9. Each review is concluded with the final recommendation which can have one of the following values.
    • Accept Submission – the paper is accepted for publication (still, some minor changes can be indicated as necessary in the review(s)).
    • Revisions Required – the paper is accepted, but some corrections are indicated necessary by the reviewer(s), without the next review round
    • Resubmit for Review – corrections are necessary and a next review round is required.
    • Decline Submission.
    • Resubmit Elsewhere – to be used if the paper is out of scope of the journal.
    On the basis of these recommendations, the handling editor makes a decision by selecting one of the following options.
    • Accept Submission – the paper is accepted for publication, while still, some minor changes indicated in the reviews can be necessary.
    • Request Revisions – the authors are requested prepare a new version of the paper with the remarks made by the reviewers taken into account, and an answer to the reviews containing the explanations on what corrections were made. Afterwards, a new review round is opened.
    • Decline Submission – the paper is rejected. If the authors still wish to correct and resubmit this paper, it will be subjected to the full new review process in which the reviews from the previous submission can be made available to the reviewers.
    This decision can be carried out in cooperation with the chief editor of the journal. After each round of reviews, the corresponding author is notified on the decision and the reviews of this round are included in this notification.
  10. In the case the numbers of positive and negative reviews are equal, the publication is subjected to a next independent review in the same review round.
  11. In the case the paper is accepted for publication but substantial changes in the contents were necessary, it can still be subjected to a single additional review or to a next round of reviews, depending on the decision of the editors based upon the range of corrections made.
  12. The decision of accepting the paper for publication is conditional. The conditions are as follows.
    • The author(s) cooperate in the editorial process with the technical editor assigned to the paper, by responding to the correspondence carried out by the web service of MG&V.
    • The authors introduce the corrections indicated by the reviewer(s), if they are necessary, and provide their explanation in this case.
    • The technical editor or the other editors do not notice the infringements of the Ethical Standards, including in particular, but not exclusively, the irresponsible generation of the content with generative AI, plagiarism, or copyright violation – see also the section Dealing with Misconduct and the next sections of the Ethical Standards.
    These conditions are checked by the technical editor assigned to the paper, in cooperation with the handling editor of the paper, and in complex cases – with the chief editor of the journal.
  13. The names of the reviewers of the specific papers are not disclosed; at the end of a closed volume (once per year)* the journal announces the list of names of its cooperating reviewers.
  14. The rules of review are made publicly known in the web page of the journal (in this very section).

Originality and Copyright

The policy concerning the originality and copyright of publications is as follows (see also the section License Agreement and Copyright for more information).

  1. MG&V accepts only original, previously unpublished material. 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 following conditions are met.
    • 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 conference publications are duly cited and the content added with respect to the conference version is clearly indicated in the paper.
    • The publisher of the conference material does not exclude the publication of extended versions.
  2. The originality of the paper is checked with the use of anti-plagiarism services. The paper is also checked against the use of content generated with Artificial Intelligence tools. These tests are made by the Editors prior to sending the paper to reviews, but this does not exclude that the Reviewers can also make such tests. 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 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.
  3. 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 present in the paper.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.

 

* In case the number of papers in a volume is small enough to make it possible for the readers to relate specific reviewers to specific papers, which would compromise the double blind review rule, the list of reviewers is published after a larger number of papers is published.