Submission Disclosures

/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, 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 (top-5 econ + AEA-imprint policy notes + poli-sci top-3).
2. Verify the current policy on the journal's own site (WebSearch/WebFetch: "<journal> 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).
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; restricted-data access language per 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).