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

• 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).
• 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.
• 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:

• 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.
• CRediT roles — the 14-role taxonomy mapped to each author (interview for the mapping; flag roles no author holds).
• 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).
• 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).

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 — statistical-disclosure screening of restricted-data outputs (the other "disclosure"; unrelated).
• .claude/skills/replication-package/SKILL.md — the deposit the data-availability statement must match.
• .claude/references/journal-profiles.md — per-journal calibration, incl. the AEA DCAS policy note.
• .claude/rules/confidential-data.md — restricted-data constraints on what the statements can say.
• .claude/skills/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.
• Build the replication deposit — that is /replication-package; 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.