Different licensors have different intensions. But licensors issuing Open Source licenses are generally trying to maximize Software Freedom. Copyleft licenses try to maximize Software Freedom by ensuring that every recipient or user of the software has full rights e.g. to share this software further and to modify it. Modification requires access to the source code, though. Overbearing source disclosure requirements jeopardize these freedoms.
GPLv3 connects the source code obligation to conveyance of the software. AGPL also requires an offer for source code when the user interacts remotely over a network with a modified copy. The Cryptographic Autonomy License goes further, requiring such an offer to anyone who the work was made perceptible to, if this would otherwise violate the licensor's IP.
However, all these licenses are enforceable because they are rooted in copyright law. If I copy a software, I need a license of the copyright holder. They can attach conditions to that license, or also refuse it. The copyright holder can't prevent me (on the basis of copyright) from doing stuff that isn't covered by copyright, such as writing a review of the software or publishing the output of the software. To do that, we'd need a contract such as an EULA. Creating such a contract in an enforcible manner while still allowing modified versions to be freely shared is an extremely difficult problem. In any case, using such a contract to restrict what the user can do instead of permitting what would be otherwise prohibited by copyright would likely violate the principles of Software Freedom or Open Source, e.g. compare OSD #6.
Such clauses would also have practical problems. If I publish a paper that includes a diagram created by a software, and the licensing of this software requires me to publish the software, a big question is: how. Clearly, I can't include the software's source code in the paper or in the diagram. I could publish it for some duration at some URL that is listed on the paper, but this won't guarantee that this URL would be accessible later, or that the original author's of the software which I modified would learn about these modifications.
If the license were to require notification or publication, this could also fail some tests established in the Debian community for open source/free software licenses. In the Desert Island Test, we have to consider whether someone can comply with the license if they don't have internet. In the Chinese Dissident Test, we have to consider that publication of the fact that someone is working on politically sensitive software could lead to repression.
So in summary, I don't know of an Open Source/Free Software license that satisfies your requirements, and I have severe doubts whether such a license could exist.