Use of artificial intelligence tools in the publishing process: expectations from publishers through author guidelines.

Introduction: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scholarly publishing has prompted publishers to develop policies that guide its ethical and practical use. This study explored the question, "What do publishers expect on the use of AI as portrayed in the author guidelines and AI publisher policies?" The investigation was guided by internationally recognized frameworks, including the STM ethical and practical guidelines on AI use, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots and generative AI in scholarly publishing, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) standards. Methods: A qualitative research approach was employed, drawing from AI-related guidelines and policies from major scholarly publishers. Four publishers were purposively selected based on their global reach, relevance across multiple disciplines, and established AI policies. Data collection was conducted through document and web content analysis, which systematically extracted relevant information from publishers' websites. Results: A qualitative research approach was employed, drawing from AI-related guidelines and policies from major scholarly publishers. Four publishers were purposively selected based on their global reach, relevance across multiple disciplines, and established AI policies. Data collection was conducted through document and web content analysis, which systematically extracted relevant information from publishers' websites. The findings revealed that AI policies are not standardized across publishers; instead, each adopts its own unique rules regarding AI-assisted writing, authorship, peer review, and disclosure. Discussion: While prior studies have documented the prevalence of disclosure requirements and authorship prohibitions, the present study moves beyond inventory to critically examine how international frameworks are reflected, adapted, and contested within individual publisher policies, and to surface tensions around enforceability, equity, and disciplinary variability that remain underexplored in existing literature. Consequently, researchers are required to carefully consult the specific policies of their target publishers before submission. The study recommends that all stakeholders in the publishing process be informed about AI-related policies relevant to their roles. Authors should ensure that AI outputs are accurate, reviewers must remain vigilant about unauthorized AI use, and publishers should proactively communicate best practices to maintain integrity and transparency in the scholarly publishing process.