Artificial intelligence in oncology publishing: a systematic review and policy analysis of high-impact journals

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping scholarly communication, yet guidance for its responsible use remains uneven across biomedical journals. We aimed to systematically assess editorial policies governing AI-assisted writing in high-impact oncology journals. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of publicly available editorial and normative documents, operationalized as a cross-sectional policy audit. Oncology journals with a 2023 Journal Impact Factor ≥5 (JCR 2024) were included. Author instructions, editorial policies, and publisher statements issued between January 2020 and March 2025 were analyzed across four domains: authorship, disclosure, permissible uses, and enforcement. Results: Sixty journals met inclusion criteria. Most journals prohibit AI systems as authors (58/60, 96.7%), reaffirming human accountability. Disclosure of AI use is mandated by 58/60 journals (96.7%), although reporting requirements vary in placement and specificity. Permissible uses are recognized by 58/60 journals (96.7%), generally limited to language editing and formatting under human supervision, while autonomous content generation or interpretation is discouraged. Enforcement provisions are present in 21/60 journals (35.0%), indicating incomplete standardization. At publisher level, disclosure adoption is universal in Elsevier (17/17), Springer Nature (20/20), AACR (6/6), Wiley (6/6), and AMA (1/1), and present in 8/10 journals in the "Other" category. Enforcement varies widely across publishers. Discussion: Editorial policies show strong convergence on core principles but remain heterogeneous in implementation, particularly regarding enforcement. We propose a cross-publisher "AI Policy Minimum Dataset" including standardized disclosures, defined permissible uses, and proportionate enforcement mechanisms, supported by transparent and regularly updated policy frameworks. Greater harmonization is essential to ensure integrity, accountability, and equitable use of AI in oncology publishing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Oncology
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1717048
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial intelligence in oncology publishing: a systematic review and policy analysis of high-impact journals

Raffaele Giusti, Marco Filetti, Pasquale Lombardi, Stefano Sganga et al.
Frontiers in Oncology
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Artificial intelligence in oncology publishing: a systematic review and policy analysis of high-impact journals

Raffaele Giusti, Marco Filetti, Pasquale Lombardi, Stefano Sganga, Giovanni Maria Iannantuono, Francesca Lo Bianco, Giampiero Porzio, Andrea Spinazzola, Daniele Santini, Monica Mariniello, Tommaso Giovagnoli, Mohsen Ibrahim, Gennaro Daniele
article en

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping scholarly communication, yet guidance for its responsible use remains uneven across biomedical journals. We aimed to systematically assess editorial policies governing AI-assisted writing in high-impact oncology journals. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of publicly available editorial and normative documents, operationalized as a cross-sectional policy audit. Oncology journals with a 2023 Journal Impact Factor ≥5 (JCR 2024) were included. Author instructions, editorial policies, and publisher statements issued between January 2020 and March 2025 were analyzed across four domains: authorship, disclosure, permissible uses, and enforcement. Results: Sixty journals met inclusion criteria. Most journals prohibit AI systems as authors (58/60, 96.7%), reaffirming human accountability. Disclosure of AI use is mandated by 58/60 journals (96.7%), although reporting requirements vary in placement and specificity. Permissible uses are recognized by 58/60 journals (96.7%), generally limited to language editing and formatting under human supervision, while autonomous content generation or interpretation is discouraged. Enforcement provisions are present in 21/60 journals (35.0%), indicating incomplete standardization. At publisher level, disclosure adoption is universal in Elsevier (17/17), Springer Nature (20/20), AACR (6/6), Wiley (6/6), and AMA (1/1), and present in 8/10 journals in the "Other" category. Enforcement varies widely across publishers. Discussion: Editorial policies show strong convergence on core principles but remain heterogeneous in implementation, particularly regarding enforcement. We propose a cross-publisher "AI Policy Minimum Dataset" including standardized disclosures, defined permissible uses, and proportionate enforcement mechanisms, supported by transparent and regularly updated policy frameworks. Greater harmonization is essential to ensure integrity, accountability, and equitable use of AI in oncology publishing.

Frontiers in OncologyVol. 16
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT), Tumour Institute of Tuscany (IT), Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea (IT), Imperial College London (GB), Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.