A competing interest is a relationship, not a verdict
Research routinely involves funding, professional roles and prior ideas. The integrity problem is not the existence of an interest but a hidden relevant relationship or unmanaged influence. Disclosure lets editors and readers judge context. It neither proves distortion nor certifies independence.
Do not ask only whether you personally feel conflicted. Ask whether an informed outsider could reasonably consider the relationship relevant. Authors may underestimate appearances or unconscious influence. When policy is ambiguous, provide concrete facts and allow the editor to apply the journal's rule.
Time windows and thresholds vary. Use the target journal and current disclosure form rather than copying a period from another publisher. This template supports accurate drafting; it is not legal, employment or tax advice.
Separate project support from personal benefit
A project grant belongs in the funding statement; personal consultancy or speaking fees belong in the interest declaration. Do not collapse both into “funded by”. State the sponsor, identifier and actual role in design, collection, analysis, drafting and the publication decision. Claim no involvement only after verifying it.
Relevant financial interests may include employment, consultancy, equity, paid testimony, travel, in-kind support, patents, licences and options. Disclose amounts only as the journal requires; do not invent a private threshold. Family relationships are handled only within the relevant policy and with proportionate privacy.
Equipment, software, data access and study products are support even where no cash changes hands. Identify who controlled data, code and publication rights. A sponsor able to delay publication or edit findings has a materially different role from one with no operational access.
Describe roles rather than alleged motives
Non-financial interests can include leadership in an advocacy group, service on a guideline panel, close personal relationships or institutional competition. Ordinary collegial contact is not automatically relevant. Give the role and its connection to the topic, allowing readers to assess significance.
Holding a strong scientific view is not itself misconduct. An author who developed the evaluated method, leads a relevant organisation or campaigns publicly on the precise issue may disclose that context. Avoid labels such as “biased”; observable roles are clearer and fairer.
Editorial positions require procedural separation. An author on the journal's board identifies that role, and the journal appoints independent handling. A statement that the person had no influence should correspond to a real recusal process.
Collect declarations person by person
- Save the journal's current categories and reporting window.
- Ask each author to answer every category personally.
- Compare funding, contributions and interests for contradictions.
- Refer uncertainty to the editor or competent compliance office.
- Approve one accurate statement before submission.
- Update after a new patent, role, payment or major revision.
The corresponding author coordinates but must not guess on behalf of colleagues. “None” is used only after everyone has responded. Preserve dated versions so a later change can be explained.
Pre-filled submission forms need active review. Old disclosures may have a different period or relationship. Check manuscript, submission record and public HTML after publication, and request correction if a relationship is missing or assigned to the wrong author.
Pair transparency with proportionate safeguards
Disclosure alone may not manage a substantial risk. Independent analysis, preregistered methods, a separate editor or controlled data access may be appropriate. Report only safeguards that actually operated. “Conflicts were managed” means little without responsible body and process.
If an undisclosed interest is discovered later, preserve the relevant records, notify the editor and follow the correction procedure. Do not silently revise a repository copy while the version of record remains wrong. The journal may seek institutional information and determine the appropriate public notice.
The data availability statement separates access from sponsorship. The CRediT role matrix identifies responsibility. More templates sit in the publication ethics hub. The one foundation route is the guide to verifiable records.