--- name: submission-disclosures description: Generate the submission-time disclosure block for a manuscript — the AI-use disclosure statement matched to the target journal's policy, CRediT author-contribution roles, conflict-of-interest statement, and data-availability statement. Use when the user says "AI disclosure", "disclosure statement", "do I need to disclose Claude", "CRediT roles", "conflict of interest statement", "data availability statement", or is preparing a submission package. NOT statistical-disclosure screening of restricted-data outputs — that is /disclosure-check. argument-hint: "[manuscript path] [journal short-name, e.g. AER] [--no-ai | --statements-only]" allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "WebSearch", "WebFetch"] effort: medium --- # /submission-disclosures — The Submission-Time Disclosure Block Draft the four statements journals now require (or strongly expect) at submission, in one pass: **AI-use disclosure**, **CRediT contributor roles**, **conflict-of-interest**, and **data availability**. Journals tightened AI-use policies through 2025–2026; an undisclosed-AI finding at a top journal is now a research-integrity problem, not a formatting one — so the statement should be drafted *deliberately*, not improvised in the submission portal at midnight. **This skill is about the author's disclosures TO the journal.** It is unrelated to [`/disclosure-check`](../disclosure-check/SKILL.md), which screens restricted-data *outputs* for statistical-disclosure risk (small cells, PII). Same word, different worlds. ## When to use - Preparing a submission or resubmission package and the portal asks for AI-use / COI / data-availability statements. - A revise-and-resubmit at a journal that adopted an AI policy since the original submission. - A coauthor asks "do we need to say we used Claude/Copilot/ChatGPT on this?" ## Phases ### Phase 1 — Resolve the journal's actual policy 1. If a journal short-name is given, read its profile in [`journal-profiles.md`](../../references/journal-profiles.md) (top-5 econ + AEA-imprint policy notes + poli-sci top-3). 2. **Verify the current policy on the journal's own site** (`WebSearch`/`WebFetch`: " artificial intelligence policy authors", the journal's submission guidelines page). Policies moved fast in 2025–2026; a cached or remembered policy is not good enough for a submission. Record the URL and retrieval date in the output. 3. If no explicit AI policy exists, default to the strictest common denominator (disclose tools, scope of use, and human responsibility) — over-disclosure is free; under-disclosure is not. ### Phase 2 — Inventory what was actually used Interview briefly (or infer from the repo when evident — e.g. `quality_reports/`, session logs, a CLAUDE.md): - **Which tools** (Claude Code, Copilot, ChatGPT, Grammarly-class) and **for what**: writing/editing prose, code authoring, code review, literature search, data analysis, translation. - **What stayed human**: research design, identification choices, interpretation, final verification of every number and citation (tie to the repo's own verification story — `/audit-reproducibility`, `/verify-claims` — when true, *say so*: "all AI-assisted numbers were independently verified against code" is a strength, not a confession). - **What AI was NOT used for** when the journal cares (e.g., most policies bar AI as a listed author and bar undisclosed AI-generated images/data). ### Phase 3 — Draft the four statements Write `quality_reports/submission_disclosures_[manuscript-slug].md` containing: 1. **AI-use disclosure** — journal-matched wording: tools + versions, scope of use, the affirmation that authors take full responsibility for all content and verified all AI-assisted output. Honest and specific; never boilerplate that overclaims ("no AI was used") when the repo's own logs say otherwise. 2. **CRediT roles** — the 14-role taxonomy mapped to each author (interview for the mapping; flag roles no author holds). 3. **Conflict-of-interest** — funding sources, paid/unpaid positions, data-provider relationships (IRB/data-use agreements often constrain what must be stated; cross-ref [`confidential-data.md`](../../rules/confidential-data.md)). 4. **Data availability** — aligned with the replication deposit: openICPSR/DCAS language when the target is an AEA-imprint journal (delegate the deposit itself to [`/replication-package`](../replication-package/SKILL.md); restricted-data access language per [`confidential-data.md`](../../rules/confidential-data.md)). With `--statements-only`, emit the statements to chat without writing the file. With `--no-ai`, skip statement 1 (the user asserts no AI assistance — note in chat that the repo's own session logs may contradict this, if they visibly do). ### Phase 4 — Parity check against the manuscript Grep the manuscript for an existing acknowledgments/disclosure section; flag contradictions (e.g., the paper thanks "research assistance" that the COI omits, or an existing AI statement that the new one contradicts). Do not silently overwrite — surface the diff. ## Exit behavior - **Statements drafted, policy verified:** write the file, print the four statements + the policy URL/date, and remind the user the statements are drafts for *author* review — sign-off is theirs. - **Journal policy unverifiable** (site unreachable, no policy found): emit the strict-default statements, clearly marked "default wording — verify against the journal's current author guidelines before submission." - **Inventory contradicts `--no-ai`:** stop and surface the contradiction; never produce a false "no AI" statement. ## Flags - `--no-ai` — Skip the AI-use statement (user asserts none was used). The skill still warns if repo evidence visibly contradicts the assertion. - `--statements-only` — Print the statements to chat; write no file. ## Cross-references - [`.claude/skills/disclosure-check/SKILL.md`](../disclosure-check/SKILL.md) — statistical-disclosure screening of restricted-data outputs (the other "disclosure"; unrelated). - [`.claude/skills/replication-package/SKILL.md`](../replication-package/SKILL.md) — the deposit the data-availability statement must match. - [`.claude/references/journal-profiles.md`](../../references/journal-profiles.md) — per-journal calibration, incl. the AEA DCAS policy note. - [`.claude/rules/confidential-data.md`](../../rules/confidential-data.md) — restricted-data constraints on what the statements can say. - [`.claude/skills/humanize/SKILL.md`](../humanize/SKILL.md) — detecting AI-voice in prose; disclosure and voice are separate obligations. ## What this skill does NOT do - **Screen outputs for statistical disclosure risk** — that is [`/disclosure-check`](../disclosure-check/SKILL.md). - **Build the replication deposit** — that is [`/replication-package`](../replication-package/SKILL.md); this skill only writes the statement that points at it. - **Decide your ethics.** It drafts honest statements from what you report and what the repo shows; whether a use *needed* disclosing under a vague policy is the author's call — the skill defaults to disclosure when in doubt. - **Submit anything.** Statements go in the user's submission package by the user's hand.