ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Editorial Policies on Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery Publishing: Current Landscape and Future Directions.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming scientific publishing, offering new opportunities in surgical planning, imaging, and research. Plastic surgery's reliance on visual documentation creates unique ethical and methodological challenges, yet the extent of generative AI policy adoption in specialty journals is unclear.
methodsWe reviewed author guidelines from 30 leading plastic surgery journals (April 24, 2025) identified through the 2023 Journal Citation Reports, SCImago Journal Rank, and Google Scholar Metrics. Two reviewers independently assessed each journal for generative AI policy presence and characteristics, including permitted uses, disclosure requirements, authorship restrictions, and geographic distribution.
resultsFourteen journals (46.7%) had generative AI-related policies, most prohibiting AI authorship (85.7%) and allowing language assistance. Disclosure requirements were inconsistent, only 28.6% explained how to disclose use, and 64.3% specified a disclosure location. References to large language models or AI-generated images appeared in 28.6% of policies and 35.7% required naming the tool used. Policies were more common among US-based journals (64.3%) and absent in South America and Africa.
conclusionThis study presents the first specialty-specific analysis of generative AI use policies in plastic surgery journals. Fewer than half of major plastic surgery journals have generative AI policies, with significant variation in scope and global disparities that may create inequitable publication standards. Specialty-specific guidelines addressing AI-generated visual content, surgical planning, and aesthetic analysis are needed to maintain transparency and research integrity while enabling safe, ethical integration of generative AI into plastic surgery research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41348127What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.