Publication Ethics

Publication of scientific contents is meticulous, methodical and comprehensive processes that involve good ethical and managerial practices. To effectively maintain high publication standards, our journal strives to work with editors, authors, peer-reviewers and copy editors.

The publication ethics attributed to all journals of ResearchersLinks are based on the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct (see www.publicationethics.org). These publication ethics are briefly described to provide a snapshot for authors, reviewers, editors and readers.

1. Author’s Responsibilities

Authorship: Authorship should be attributed to personnel with significant contribution to the study, manuscript drafting, and holding responsibility for the authenticity. General supervision, or financial support shall not suffice the authorship. Contribution of each author shall clearly be stated and contributing authors shall not be changed without prior written consent from the existing authors.

Acknowledgement of Funding Sources: All authors shall fairly and clearly state the portion of the studies funded, supported or sponsored by any of the government, non-government or personal sources.

Conflicts of Interest/Disclosures: Authors are required to declare any financial, academic, commercial, political or personal conflicts before the publication of the manuscript.

Data Ownership and Access: Authors are expected to clarify the ownership, appropriate access and full understanding of the data being presented in the submitted manuscripts.

Reporting Standards: It is essential that authors are aware of international standards on the publications, and are professional and authorised to conduct studies on living objects. Moreover, authors are expected to be fully aware of practices for multiple, redundant or concurrent publications and their mitigations consequences.

Ethical Approvals: In cases where animals are used in the submitted manuscript, the methods section must clearly indicate approval from the ethics committee of the institute or organisation and should state that all efforts were taken to minimize pain and discomfort to the animal while conducting these experiments.

Ethics of Investigation: Authors should make sure that the manuscript is designed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 1975, otherwise the manuscript will not be accepted for publication or will be rejected later.

Permissions: In case any part (e.g. table or figure) of the submitted manuscript has been taken from previously published work, it is the responsibility of the authors to obtain permission either from the publishers or from the authors depending on the copyright ownership. ResearchersLinks can demand this permission anytime, pre- or post-publication of the study.

Originality and Plagiarism Policy: The Editorial Office will strictly monitor text plagiarism and obvious fraudulent data prior to the review process and if plagiarism is detected at this stage or later, the manuscript will be rejected and will not be reconsidered in any journal published independently or in association with ResearchersLinks, UK.

Appeal of Decision: Authors have the right to appeal the Editor's decision in writing to the Editorial Office stating the reasons for appealing the decision with evidence and supporting data.

2. Editors / Associate Editors / Editorial Members Responsibilities

Editorship: Editors (chief editor, associate editor or member of the editorial board) are expert in the field and play central roles in the peer-review process. Editors are selected based on their excellent scientific qualification, and reputation in the field. They are expected to strictly follow guidelines to not only maintain quality of publications but also to ensure best possible publication ethics.

Confidentiality: Editors shall only access the submitted manuscripts for evaluation of quality and peer-review process. They shall not disclose any contents (full or partial) in any media (electronic or print) before the publication of the material or without prior written consent of the authors. Any idea or concept generated through the submitted manuscript shall not be used for personal benefits or financial gain.

Assessment of Manuscripts: Editors shall evaluate contents purely based on the scientific quality and advancement in the existing understanding. Decisions shall not be based on race, gender, geographical origin, religion, and ethnicity and on any other personal or commercial interests.

Flexibility and Cooperation: Editors are required to suggest and support the ethical standards, be willing to consider retractions, rectifications, and erratum and cooperate with authors to improve the quality of publications.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors shall not consider any submitted manuscript for the review process himself/herself where there is conflict of interests. In such situations, an alternative associate editor or member of the editorial board shall be considered.

Accountabilities: In case publisher suspect any form of misconduct, malpractice or unethical act, the matter shall be investigated promptly in agreement with authors and would be solved with diligence.

3. Reviewers Responsibilities

Reviewership: Reviewers are essential part of the peer-review process and are important benchmarks for quality publications. Although sometimes tedious and time consuming, reviewing a manuscript is also a privilege.

Pre-acceptance Obligations: Reviewers are expected to only accept to review the manuscript when the scope of the research/study falls within his/her areas of expertise and that they have sufficient time to submit the report timely.

Conflict of Interest and Willingness: Reviewers shall decline to review the manuscript if there is any conflict of interest, the study is beyond the ken of knowledge or they are unable to submit the evaluation in time. They shall notify the editors at their earliest convenience and can/shall suggestive alternative reviewers.

Confidentiality: The journal follow single-blinded review in which names of the reviewers are not disclosed to authors, however, reviewers are aware of authors and their affiliations. Reviewers shall only access the submitted manuscripts for evaluation of quality and peer-review process. They shall not disclose any contents (full or partial) in any media (electronic or print) before the publication of the material or without prior written consent of the authors. Any idea or concept generated through the submitted manuscript shall not be used for personal benefits or financial gain.

Objectivity: Reviewers are requested to comments on scientific contents, appropriateness of the study and value of the outcome. They are requested to not to assess the manuscripts based on race, gender, geographical origin, religion, and ethnicity and on any other personal or commercial interests.

Meeting Standards: Reviewers shall adhere to the criteria set by the journal in the online portal. Any comments on competing interests, duplication of publication, unethical practice or dubious act shall be conducted to the editor in the “confidential comments to the Editor” section in the online submission system.

4. Publisher / Copy-Editor Responsibilities

Involvement and Cooperation in the Peer-Review Process: We are committed to bridge all components of peer-review process for delivery of quality publications and benefiting researchers. Our all advertisements, reprinting, or other commercial interests shall not effect the decision of the editors, associate editors, and reviewers.

Article Withdrawal and Corrections to the Record: The published articles may be considered for withdrawal if proven to be plagiarised, presenting fake, duplicate or fraudulent data, or showing clear evidences of infringements of ethical codes. Such articles (html, pdf, epub, eflip) will be replaced by the content stating the withdrawal of the manuscripts. Minor errors such as typos, textual changes, or clearer statements on the existing contents will be published as corrections.

Integrity and Quality of Services: We will ensure that all contents are confidential before publication, meeting standard of archiving and abstracting and timely publication of the accepted manuscripts.

5. Recording Complaints

Any complaints of ethical breaches or misconduct will be recorded and addressed transparently by the journal.

6. Author Contribution Policy

When submitting to "Machines and Algorithms", authors must clearly define individual contributions, particularly regarding conception/design and data work, to ensure transparency and accountability. These are key criteria for determining authorship and assessing scholarly impact.

Contributions to Conception/Design: This involves the intellectual foundation of the research, including:

  • Original Ideas: Proposing the core hypothesis, research question, or novel methodology.
  • Theoretical Frameworks: Developing mathematical models, algorithms, or computational approaches.
  • Study Design: Structuring experiments, simulations, or analytical methods.
  • Technical Innovation: Designing new software/hardware systems or architectures.

Contributions to Data Work: This covers data-related efforts essential to the research, such as:

  • Data Collection: Acquiring datasets (e.g., scraping, lab experiments, surveys).
  • Data Curation: Cleaning, annotating, or labelling data (critical in AI/ML).
  • Data Analysis: Applying statistical/computational techniques to derive insights.
  • Code Implementation: Writing software to process/generate data (e.g., simulations).

CRediT Taxonomy: Authors must select roles (Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, etc.) during submission in OJS. Non-qualifying contributors may be acknowledged separately. MnA requires this at submission stage.

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is a standardized classification system used to detail the specific contributions of each author in a research paper. It was developed to improve transparency in scholarly publishing and ensure fair attribution of academic work.

In 2022 CRediT was approved as an ANSI/NISO standard. CRediT is licensed for permissive re-use (Creative Commons 4.0 (CC-BY)). CRediT descriptors are now available in multiple languages. Below are the 14 official CRediT roles with their descriptions and examples.

Role Description & Example
Conceptualization Formulating research ideas, hypotheses, or overarching goals.
Example: Proposing a new algorithm for federated learning.
Methodology Designing research methods, models, or experimental protocols.
Example: Creating a simulation framework for testing AI robustness.
Software Writing, debugging, or maintaining code/software used in the research.
Example: Developing a Python library for quantum algorithm simulations.
Validation Verifying results (e.g., replication, statistical checks).
Example: Testing a machine learning model’s accuracy on unseen data.
Formal Analysis Applying mathematical, statistical, or computational techniques to data.
Example: Deriving theoretical bounds for an optimization problem.
Investigation Conducting experiments, simulations, or data collection.
Example: Running benchmarks on a new hardware accelerator.
Resources Providing materials, datasets, or tools (without direct analysis).
Example: Supplying a proprietary dataset for training models.
Data Curation Cleaning, annotating, or curating data for analysis.
Example: Labeling images for a computer vision study.
Writing – Original Draft Preparing the first draft of the manuscript.
Writing – Review & Editing Revising, critiquing, or editing the manuscript.
Visualization Creating figures, diagrams, or visual representations of data.
Supervision Overseeing research planning/execution (PI/advisor roles).
Project Administration and Funding Managing funding, logistics, or institutional approvals.

Author Responsibilities: The author must submit the author contributorship details at the time of paper submission. MnA requires this as part of the submission process. Non-qualifying authors should be acknowledged separately in the acknowledgements section.

7. Research Integrity and Accountability Policy

At Machines and Algorithms, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, transparency, and ethical publication practices. This policy outlines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the journal itself—before, during, and after publication.

A. Author Accountability:

  • Ensure data transparency and reproducibility.
  • Be collectively accountable for all aspects of the work.
  • Respond promptly to any requests for clarification, correction, or retraction.

B. Reviewer Accountability:

  • Conduct reviews that are fair, confidential, and timely.
  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and evidence-based feedback.
  • Support the integrity of the peer review process.

C. Editor Accountability:

  • Impartial and ethical editorial decisions.
  • Compliance with COPE’s Best Practices.
  • Prompt handling of ethical complaints and disputes.
  • Issuance of corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary.

D. Journal Responsibilities:

  • Preserving the scholarly record with permanent access (e.g., DOIs).
  • Ensuring the credibility and discoverability of published articles.
  • Maintaining clear, accessible policies on publication ethics.
  • Actively investigating and addressing any post-publication issues.

E. Post-Publication Oversight:

  • Accept and investigate complaints or ethical concerns.
  • Publish corrections or retractions when needed.
  • Collaborate with authors, institutions, and ethical bodies to resolve disputes.

F. Our Commitment: We uphold this policy to ensure that Machines and Algorithms remains a trusted platform for rigorous, ethical, and impactful research in artificial intelligence, computer science, and emerging technologies.

For questions or concerns, please contact:
editor@knovell.org

8. Plagiarism Policy

At Machines and Algorithms, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism. Upholding originality, proper attribution, and academic honesty is essential to maintaining the trust of the research community and the credibility of our publications. Submissions must pass plagiarism checks, ensuring proper attribution of sources and no self-plagiarism. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • Copying text, data, images, or ideas from other works without proper citation.
  • Self-plagiarism (reuse of significant parts of an author’s own previously published work without appropriate referencing or justification).
  • Paraphrasing another’s work without crediting the original source.
  • Submitting someone else's research or work as one's own.

Following types of plagiarism are considered in journal submissions:

Type Description
Direct Copying Word-for-word copying without quotation or reference.
Mosaic/Partial Plagiarism Blending copied material with original content.
Paraphrasing without Attribution Rewriting someone else’s ideas, findings, or arguments in your own words without giving credit to the original source.
Self-plagiarism Republishing or reusing one's own previous work without disclosure.
Submitting Work Obtained from Others Presenting someone else's work—whether entirely or partially—as your own.
Image or Data Plagiarism Using images, charts, graphs, tables, datasets, or any form of visual/statistical information created or collected by someone else without proper acknowledgment or permission.

Generative AI Policies:

A. Author Responsibilities:

  • Authors must properly cite all sources.
  • Obtain and share necessary permissions for using copyrighted material.
  • Ensure that the submitted work is their own and has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere.

B. Plagiarism Detection Methods:

  • Automatic Detection: The journal will use Turnitin/iThenticate for plagiarism checking.
  • Manual Review: Reviewers will also attempt to detect plagiarism.
  • AI and LLM Tools: These tools can help in detecting plagiarized text.

C. Handling Plagiarism:

All plagiarism cases are handled in accordance with the COPE Guidelines:

  • Initial screening and investigation.
  • Notification to the author(s) and an opportunity to respond.
    • Global Similarity (overall): 15%
    • Local Similarity (from each source): <2%
    • The submission must not use Generative AI and if used, it must be indicated in the document.
  • Review of the evidence.
  • Rejection of the submission.
  • Retraction of a published article.
  • Notification of the author's institution or funding agency.
  • A ban on future submissions to the journal.

D. Contact for Concerns: To report suspected plagiarism or request clarification, please contact:
editor@knovell.org

9. Conflict of Interest Policy

The integrity and transparency of the peer-review and publication process are fundamental to the reputation of Machines and Algorithms. This policy ensures that all parties involved—authors, reviewers, and editors—disclose any relationships or interests that could unduly influence their work or decisions.

A conflict of interest occurs when personal, financial, academic, or professional affiliations could compromise—or be perceived to compromise—the objectivity, integrity, or impartiality of research, review, or editorial decisions. Conflicts may include:

  • Financial: employment, grants, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony.
  • Personal or Professional: affiliations, close personal relationships, or rivalry with any author or institution.
  • Academic: participation in related or competitive research or projects.

A. Author Responsibilities:

  • Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest at the time of manuscript submission.
  • If no conflict exists, authors should include the statement: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”
  • If research was funded, the source of financial support must be clearly identified in the manuscript.

B. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflict that may bias their evaluation, including recent collaboration with the author(s), direct competition in research, or financial interest in the subject matter.
  • Reviewers must recuse themselves from the review if a conflict exists.

C. Editor Responsibilities:

  • Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors, or financial interest in the outcome of the publication.
  • In such cases, the editorial responsibility will be reassigned to an independent editor.

D. Management of Conflicts Pre-Publication:

  • All disclosed conflicts will be reviewed by the Editorial Board to assess potential impact on the integrity of the review or publication process.
  • In case of undisclosed or discovered conflicts, appropriate actions may include: reassignment of reviewers/editors, rejection or retraction of the manuscript, or institutional notification if necessary.

E. Transparency and Acknowledgment: Conflicts of interest (or lack thereof) must be included in the Conflict of Interest Declaration section in published articles. Funding sources and author roles must be clearly stated to promote transparency.

F. COI Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) evaluates the nature and extent of the conflict.

G. Management of Conflicts Post-Publication:

If any COI is discovered after an article has already been published, it can lead to corrective actions by the journal to maintain academic integrity and transparency. A post-publication COI review may be triggered by:

  • A third-party complaint or whistleblower report
  • Discovery by editorial staff or reviewers
  • Admission by an author or reviewer

Review Process:

  • The Editor-in-Chief and a designated COI Review Panel will investigate the claim.
  • Authors may be asked for clarification or additional disclosure.

The editorial board evaluates:

  • Whether the COI was significant enough to affect the results, interpretation, or peer-review process.
  • Whether the omission was intentional or accidental.

The Decision Process:

  • Correction Notice: For minor COIs that do not impact research integrity, a correction is published to disclose the missing information.
  • Editorial Expression of Concern: If the COI raises questions about reliability but evidence is still under review, a note of concern is issued.
  • Retraction: If the undisclosed COI is serious and significantly influenced research or review, the article may be formally retracted.
  • Notification to Institutions: In cases involving serious ethical breaches, the author’s affiliated institutions or funding bodies may be informed.

The Actions: All corrective actions (corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions) are clearly labeled, linked to the original article, and indexed to maintain transparency in the scientific record.

Authors or reviewers who fail to disclose relevant COIs may be subject to:

  • Submission restrictions or reviewer bans
  • Reporting to institutional ethics boards