Aim and Scope

The main objective of the journal "Malignant Tumors" is to publish original articles on clinical, clinical-experimental and fundamental scientific research, reviews, lectures, descriptions of clinical cases, as well as auxiliary materials on the treatment of malignant neoplasms.

The aim of the publication are to inform doctors of various specialties about achievements in the field of oncology, including diagnostics, treatment and prevention of malignant neoplasms, to promote the improvement of the effectiveness of treatment of patients with malignant neoplasms.

The interaction of specialists allows us to develop a unified strategy for scientific clinical research, diagnostics, and treatment of diseases.

Section Policies

ORIGINAL REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL REPORTS. RADIATION THERAPY ISSUES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL NOTES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FUNDAMENTAL ONCOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS AND ANALYSIS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXPERT OPINION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RESOLUTION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONSENSUS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HOW TO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LECTURE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS IN ONCOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Published 4 times a year

Open Access Policy

Medical scientific refereed journal “Malignant Tumours” provides direct open access to its content based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to increasing global knowledge sharing.

“Malignant Tumours” supports the Open Access Policy which is in line with the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration (BOAI) and means that published articles are openly available on the Internet for free, allowing all users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, scan them for indexing, use them for any other legitimate purpose without financial, legal or technical barriers, except those that are inseparable from access to the Internet itself, without asking prior authorization from the author and publisher.

At the same time, users have the right to use the materials in their publications, provided that a reference to the journal publication is made.

The articles of this journal are available to everyone from the moment of publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0). This license grants full use and the right to reproduce to everyone, provided that the work is attributed to the original authors.

Peer-Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Malignant Tumors". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and editorial staff, as well as invited reviewers – leading specialists in the relevant field of medicine (having an academic degree of at least a doctor of science and not having scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors of the article and the editorial board of the journal).
2. The decision on choosing a particular reviewer to conduct the article examination is made by the editor-in-chief. The review period is 4-8 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
3. The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their own needs. The author of the work being reviewed is provided with the text of the review.
4. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
5. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer’s decision is justified):               -    the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
   -   the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
   -    the article requires additional review by another specialist;
   -    the article cannot be published in the journal.
6. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner (partially or completely). Refining the article should not take more than two months from the moment the electronic message about the need to make changes is sent to the authors. The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.
7. In case of refusal of the authors to revise the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors about the refusal to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the removal of the manuscript from the register due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
8. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board..
9. The decision to refuse publication of a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for re-examination. A notice of refusal to publish and a copy of the review are sent to the author by e-mail.
10. After the editorial board of the journal has made a decision to accept the article for publication, the editors inform the author of this and indicate the publication dates.
11. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
12. The following are not accepted for publication:                                                  -    articles that are not formatted in accordance with the publication requirements and whose authors refuse to technically revise the article.
    -    articles whose authors do not implement the reviewer’s constructive comments or do not reasonably refute them.
13. The editors send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
14. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

Indexation

Articles in "Malignant tumors" (“Zlokachestvennye opuholi”) are indexed by several systems:

• Russian Scientific Citation Index 
• Google Scholar 
• Base
• Cyberleninka
• Dimensions
• LAN
• RNMJ.RU
• VINITI RAS

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Malignant tumors”  are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Malignant tumors"

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Malignant tumors" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Malignant tumors"  journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Malignant tumors" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Malignant tumors"  and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Malignant tumors" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper. 

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of  "Malignant tumors" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support "Malignant tumors" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Founder

• Russian Society of Clinical Oncology
  25 Trubnaya street, Bldg. 1, Moscow, 127051
  Phone: + 7 (499) 685-02-37
  E-mail: journal@russco.org
  Web-site: www.rosoncoweb.ru

Author fees

Publication is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Plagiarism policy

By submitting a manuscript to the Malignant Tumors, authors certify that all submitted material, including text, figures, tables, raw data, and other accompanying files, is their original work, has been prepared independently, and is not simultaneously under review or submission to other journals.

The editorial team checks all incoming materials with the help of the Russian text plagiarism detection system "Antiplagiat" (https://www.antiplagiat.ru ).

When reviewing a manuscript, the editorial team will check the text materials for illegal borrowings, incorrect borrowings, unfair self-citations, lack of necessary self-citations, signs of borrowings masking (including rewriting and attempts to circumvent the system), signs of generated text, translated borrowings (including machine and free translation).

For all illustrative materials (graphics, images, diagrams), the editorial team performs manual checks to detect illegal borrowing, incorrect borrowing, unfair self-citations, lack of required self-citations, and signs of image manipulation.

If violations of publication ethics are found, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics  (COPE).

Data Sharing Policy

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of research data

This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal Malignant Tumoursis. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.

Definition of exceptions

The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the Journal Malignant Tumoursis welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Journal Malignant Tumoursis does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal Malignant Tumoursis does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.

Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal Malignant Tumoursis.

Archiving

The journal makes full-text archives on the Russian Science Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru/) platform and Russian State Library (RSL).

Correction policy

Changes in the article accepted for publication, which went through the stages of peer review and prepress (publication online first is included), fall into one of three categories:

Addendum, 

Publisher Correction (Erratum),

Author Correction (Corrigendum).

Decisions about types of correction are made by the journal's editors, sometimes with the advice of reviewers, Editorial Council or Editorial Board Members. This process involves consultation with the authors of the paper, but the editors/ Editorial Board Members make the final decision about whether an amendment is required and the category in which the amendment is published.

Addendum.
Adding new material to the accepted article that supplements its original content (addendum) requires mandatory reviewing. Additional material is uploaded on the journal's website as a new manuscript with a link to the original article.
If the new material should replace the original content of the accepted article, the editor may consider the publication of an erratum or a corrigendum.

Publisher Corrections (erratum) is published in case of an error (typo, missed change) introduced by the journal in production, which is significant and affects the understanding of the article by the reader. Corrections are not published for simple, obvious typographical errors.

Author Corrections (Corrigendum). If the authors consider it necessary to make corrections after the publication of the article (corrigendum), it is necessary to send a written (by email) request with justification to the editorial office of the journal. The final decision on the publication of the correction (corrigendum) is made by the editors of the journal and members of the Editorial Board after assessing the impact of the change on the scientific accuracy and significance of the published article. In some cases, the identification of serious errors and inconsistencies in the published article may require retraction of the article.

Retraction policy

According to the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 ) and the "Rules for Retraction" of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), the withdrawal of the text from the publication (retraction) is possible to correct the published information and notify readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may result from misconception or deliberate breach.

Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorization, copyright infringement or some other legal issue (eg, libel, privacy, illegality), unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.

Editors of the Malignant Tumors Journal consider retracting a publication if:

Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation):

• Detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication);
• It contains material or data without authorization for use. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research. It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

If the author/group of authors find it necessary to withdraw the article, they contact the editorial office, explaining the reason for their decision. If the editorial board agrees to retraction, then it independently retracts the text.

If the editorial board decides to withdraw the text based on its expertise or information received by the editorial board, the author/group of authors is informed of this decision, with a justification for retraction of the article. If the author/team ignores the editorial request, it is appropriate to seek assistance from the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications.

Having decided to withdraw the article, the editors indicate the reason for the retraction (if plagiarism is found, indicating the sources of borrowing), as well as the date of retraction. The article and the description of the article remain on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the inscription WITHDRAWAL / RETRACTED and the retraction date are applied to the electronic version of the text, the same mark is placed with the article in the table of contents of the issue.

The Council for the Ethics of Scientific Publications and the Scientific Information Base (NEB, CyberLeninka) is provided with a protocol, which indicates the date of the meeting, the composition of the meeting, the results of the examination, a reasoned decision, and a completed form.

Crossmark policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal "Malignant Tumors" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

Journal's Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence

This policy governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools designed to create new content (text, code, images, data) and modify it. Routine spelling and punctuation checks using modern text editor tools are not covered by this policy.

Key Policy Provisions:

No generative AI program may be presented as the author or co-author of an article or credited as having contributed to writing the paper.

Any output produced by generative AI must be critically evaluated by a human.

Any use of generative AI should be appropriately disclosed.

Responsibility for information obtained using generative AI lies solely with the human.

The current policy is not final, and its individual items may be revised depending on the conditions of using generative AI and progress in this field.

The following should be kept in mind when using generative AI:

Authors who use generative AI often ignore its limitations and expose themselves to cognitive biases: they tend to believe that AI provides comprehensive answers to given questions and never makes mistakes.

Generative AI is prone to hallucinations and sometimes is unable to say “no.” If the chatbot does not know the accurate answer to your question, it will generate a response that appears plausible but bears no connection to reality.

Generative AI makes mistakes. The chatbot may admit to a mistake, but only when asked a specific question about it. Is it possible to identify mistakes where you least expect to find them?

Generative AI is biased. The responses provided by generative AI depend on the data set used to train the corresponding model.

Generative AI does not offset the lack of experience of its users. The less experience the author has, the more likely it is that such author will not be able to find inaccuracies in the response provided by the chatbot.

The use of generative AI always poses a risk for breaches of privacy and rights. The terms and conditions of publicly available generative AI tools often permit the reuse of input data in training, and the data may be accidentally or intentionally displayed as output from a generative AI tool without appropriate licensing notices or distribution terms. When generating a response, the generative AI may use other people's ideas without properly citing the source.

The use of generative AI does not always provide access to comprehensive data on the issues being studied. For various reasons, some content may not be available for training generative AI models.

Documenting the use of generative AI to prepare an article or to plan a study is a must — journals require not only to describe the use of generative AI, but also to provide the prompts submitted to the AI tool and the generated responses. At different points in time, a generative AI tool may respond differently to the same prompt, so it is essential to save information that is important for further study.

Verifying information produced by generative AI in response to a prompt takes time (often a significant amount of it).

The detectors of generated text can flag potentially generated phrases, but they cannot identify fabricated references that arise from generative AI hallucinations (although some publishers are already addressing this issue).

Properly disclosing the use of generative AI is key to minimizing the spread of incorrect information and making sure the obtained data can be checked later.

The editorial team of Malignant Tumours permits authors to use generative artificial intelligence as follows:

• Checking spelling and punctuation;
• Using bibliographic reference managers;
• Improving the readability of an article;
• Formatting text according to journal requirements;
• Generating ideas;
• Analyzing the source data;
• Selecting keywords;
• Categorizing sources for review;
• Writing program code;
• Improving the article’s structure.

The editorial team of Malignant Tumours requires full disclosure of information on how exactly and for what purposes the generative AI tool was used.

The editorial team of Malignant Tumours does not allow the following use of generative AI:

Generative AI may not be used to address the author's key tasks, such as generating scientific conclusions or developing clinical recommendations; using AI to create any type of content, including annotations and supplementary materials; generative AI should not substitute for critical aspects of scientific research, such as interpreting data, reaching conclusions, or creating reliable content.

Generating/Editing Images and Data

Generative AI may be used to create or modify images, provided that information about the image manipulation is disclosed and the following conditions are met: adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are permitted if they do not distort the original data. It is unacceptable to improve, hide, move, delete, or add specific elements to the image. The use of generative AI must be described in the caption below the image.

Citing the Responses Provided by Generative AI in the Text

The responses provided by generative AI cannot be cited in the article’s text.

Disclosing Information on the Use of Generative AI

The editorial team of Malignant Tumours requires authors to include information on the use of generative AI in a statement below the article’s text:

Use of Generative AI Tools

The disclosure should include information about the generative AI tool that was used (name, version, and number), the purpose of its use, and how it was used.

If no generative AI was used in conducting the research and preparing the article, then this should be stated.

Example:

When preparing this paper, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as necessary and assume(s) full responsibility for the paper’s content.

The author must be ready to submit the prompts and resulting output upon editorial request.

Using Generative AI in Peer Review

The reviewers should avoid the following, even with the intention of improving the wording of their review:

• Upload the text of an article or fragments thereof to a generative AI tool as such uploading may breach privacy;
• Upload the text of a review or fragments thereof to a generative AI tool as such uploading may breach privacy;
• Use a generative AI tool to evaluate the article.

If a reviewer suspects that generative AI has been used in an article, he/she should report this to the editor.

If a reviewer wishes to conduct an additional check of the manuscript using generative AI detectors, he/she should report this to the editor.

Using Generative AI to Edit an Article

The editors should avoid the following, even with the intention of improving the wording:

• Uploading the text of an article or fragments thereof to a generative AI tool, as this may breach privacy;
• Uploading the text of a review or fragments thereof to a generative AI tool, as this may breach privacy;
• Using generative AI tool to consolidate reviewer comments and prepare a letter to the author with the final decision on publication.

Steps to be taken by the editorial team after detecting undisclosed use of generative AI (before or after publication)

The editor of the journal may suspect undeclared or incorrect use of generative AI before or after publication. If such suspicions arise, the editorial team of the journal will take the following steps:

• Request clarification from the author(s);
• Ask to submit evidence that the article was prepared without using generative AI, such as drafts or unprocessed data;
• Check the article’s text with an alternative generative AI detector (without using a generative AI chatbot);
• Check the texts written by the author before the emergence of generative AI tools for the presence of generated fragments;
• Interview the author.

After gathering information, the editorial team will review the article and the impact of generative AI on the research findings to determine the appropriate course of action:

• Make changes/additions to the article with the appropriate note;
• Retract the article according to the existing procedure.

Resolving Disputes

The decision on each suspicious case will be made on an individual basis. In the event of disputes, the editorial team will rely on existing guidelines and recommendations, as well as its own policy on the use of generative AI.

Advertising in Medical Journals

This text follows the Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals WAME.

Many scientific journals derive income from advertising or reprints, which almost always involves a potential conflict of interest. Editorial decisions should not be influenced by advertising or reprint revenue. In a journal, the editorial and advertising functions must be separated. Advertisers and sponsors should not have control over editorial decisions, regardless of ad placement terms or other agreements.

Reprints should be published as they originally appeared in the journal (including subsequent corrections); therefore, they should not contain any additions or changes.

The content of special supplementary issues (if any) should be regulated solely by the editorial decisions; the content of such issues should not be influenced by sponsors or advertisers.

Limitations on the amount of advertising material in the journal should be described and included in the journal's policy. If articles in supplementary issues undergo peer review that differs from the standard procedure adopted by the journal, this should be stated on the journal's website.

The journals must have in place a formal advertising policy, and this should be made available to all participants in the editorial and publishing process. Briefly, all advertisements must clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. Advertisements for medicinal products must indicate the full name of each active ingredient.

Commercial ads should not be placed adjacent to any editorial or article that discusses the advertised product, nor should they contain references to the issue of the journal in which they are placed.

Advertising content should have an appearance that is distinct from editorial and other material so that the difference between them is obvious.

Ads must not be deceptive or misleading. Ads should not exaggerate the actual characteristics of the advertised product. Ads may not contain offensive religious, racial, or ethnic references.

Advertised products should be focused on medical practice, medical education, or the provision of medical care.

The journal should have the right to refuse the placement of any advertisement for any reason. The decision to publish an ad may only be made with the involvement of the editor and the editorial board of the journal.