Make disclosure forms capture relationships that need assessment

1. Separate disclosure from a judgment of bias

ICMJE treats relevant financial and nonfinancial relationships as matters for transparent disclosure; their presence does not automatically establish improper influence. Disclosure also extends beyond direct funding of the reported study.

Explain this distinction when requesting information. A colleague who believes a relationship had no effect may otherwise answer only a different question: “Was I biased?” Ask for the relationship and its context first. Keep the later assessment separate, with a named responsible role. Similarly, an unanswered form is an incomplete record; it is not a declaration of no interests and does not by itself prove deliberate concealment.

Reference: ICMJE: relationships, activities and conflicts of interest

2. Read the current form before designing reminders

Record the destination journal, the current form or submission questions, the version available and the date checked. Use the reporting period specified for each item in that actual request. Do not apply one remembered number of months to every type of support or relationship. If instructions conflict or omit a relevant detail, send a focused clarification through the journal’s official route.

Invite each person to review their own circumstances. A corresponding author may coordinate collection, but a spreadsheet completed from colleagues’ old biographies is a poor substitute for their answers. Give enough context about the submitted work for them to understand what is being asked. Collect only the detail the process needs and explain who will receive the response.

3. Use questions that reveal the factual relationship

A working worksheet can ask who provided support, what was provided, to whom it was provided, when it occurred and how it relates to the topic. Keep direct study support separate from other relationships. For a nonfinancial role, describe the activity rather than forcing it into a payment field. A free-text question is useful when the available categories do not fit.

The table is a proposed conversation aid, not a validated risk score. Do not assign arbitrary points to employment, an unpaid role or a payment and then advertise the sum as an objective measure of integrity. The account should be specific enough for assessment without collecting unrelated personal information.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Discuss three fictional examples without scoring people

In a fictional study of a clinical device, an author reports payment for a manufacturer’s teaching event unrelated to the study itself. The worksheet records the event, payer, timing and the author’s explanation, then applies the journal’s actual request. “The company did not fund our study” does not answer the separate question about that relationship.

A second author holds an unpaid leadership role in a society advocating a particular service model. Record what the role involves and its connection to the manuscript topic; an empty payment field does not describe it. A third author reports that an employer provided protected research time while a separate grant paid study expenses. Keep those forms of support distinguishable in the working record and confirm the final wording with the people concerned.

5. Record how the information will be managed

ICMJE also addresses reviewers and editors: relevant relationships must be considered, with recusal where the potential conflict affects their role. Completing a disclosure is therefore distinct from deciding who may assess a manuscript.

For a real case, use the journal’s approved process to identify an independent decision-maker where required. Keep the disclosure, the assessment and the resulting assignment decision as separate entries. Record any additional information requested and the reason. The author-facing explanation should disclose what the relevant policy requires without exposing private internal correspondence or another person’s unrelated details.

A form cannot technically prevent a conflicted editor from opening a manuscript. If reassignment is part of the decision, confirm that the actual workflow and permissions implement it. A planned replacement and a completed handoff are different states.

Reference: ICMJE: relationships, activities and conflicts of interest

6. Reconcile the statement at revision and publication

Compare the submitted declarations, funding text, acknowledgements and portal answers for inconsistencies. Ask the individual about discrepancies rather than choosing the shorter version. When circumstances or the manuscript change, check whether the current policy calls for an update. Retain the version used for the submitted package and record later corrections.

Read the final public statement in the proof, including the Arabic version if one is published. A dropped organisation name or mistranslated activity can change its meaning. If something is missing after publication, contact the journal with the exact correction and supporting explanation. Treat suspected intentional nondisclosure through the applicable process; a working worksheet does not establish intent or substitute for an investigation.

Questions for a practical final check

• The form and item-specific reporting periods are checked.
• Direct funding and other relationships are distinguishable.
• Each person confirms their own response.
• Unanswered questions remain marked as unresolved.
• Disclosure and management decisions have separate records.
• The final statement matches the confirmed information.