This qualitative and quantitative content analysis assesses AI transparency practices among major scholarly publishers, indicating room for improvement.
While increasing scholarship has investigated journal policies on how authors must disclose their use of AI, little research has investigated how scholarly publishers disclose their own use of AI within their editorial workflows and beyond. This study undertook a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the websites of the five largest scholarly publishers, as well as each of their top 20 journals, to better understand how scholarly publishers are practicing AI transparency. The analysis found that most publisher webpages included some information about their use of AI, while only about a quarter of the journal webpages did. Some publishers noted AI restrictions for journal editors, but none mentioned restrictions for other publishing staff. Details in these AI statements were often lacking, and overall, the statements were often hard to find, potentially limiting their ability to help make such AI use transparent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teresa Schultz (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: