Free scoping read. A written assessment of your manuscript in two business days, at no cost.

Start one
Contents

On this page

  1. Conflict-of-interest declarations: adequate and inadequate wording
  2. AI-tool disclosures: adequate and inadequate wording
  3. Reasons for the gap between the two versions

Academy · Concepts & Definitions · Declarations that satisfy and do not

Declarations That Satisfy a Journal and Declarations That Do Not: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Wording

A declaration that appears complete may nevertheless fail to state what a specific publisher requires. Comparing the publisher’s exact requirement with both versions makes the gap evident.

Pubrica AcademyWritten by a research integrity consultant Reviewed byan editorial consultant Published10 October 2026 Last checked10 October 2026 Reading time6 minutes Sources1 peer-reviewed

This worked example considers two common types of declaration, a conflict-of-interest statement and an AI-tool use disclosure, and presents a version that satisfies the requirements of a major publisher’s guidance alongside a version that appears reasonable but does not meet that specific requirement.

Learning objectives

  • The content a conflict-of-interest declaration must state to meet expectations aligned with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
  • The content an AI-tool disclosure must state under current publisher guidance.
  • Why a declaration that appears complete may still fail to meet the specific requirement.

Common misconceptions

  • “A conflict-of-interest statement saying 'the authors declare no conflicts of interest' is always sufficient.” The broader disclosure expectations of the ICMJE, and many publishers’ own forms, require disclosure of specific categories (funding, consulting fees, patents, stock) even when none exist, or confirmation that each category was actively considered; a blanket statement does not demonstrate that this consideration took place.

Conflict-of-interest declarations: adequate and inadequate wording

Falls short: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest." Satisfies (per ICMJE-aligned expectations1): "The authors have completed the ICMJE Disclosure Form for each author. [Author A] reports consulting fees from [Company] outside the submitted work; all other authors declare no competing financial or non-financial interests related to this work." The difference: the satisfying version confirms that the ICMJE form was completed for each author and names an actual disclosure where one exists, rather than defaulting to a blanket denial.

AI-tool disclosures: adequate and inadequate wording

Falls short: "AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript." Satisfies: "A generative AI tool (ChatGPT, OpenAI, [version]) was used to improve the clarity of the English language in an early draft; the tool was not used for data analysis, interpretation, or generation of scientific content, and all AI-assisted text was reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final content." The difference: the satisfying version names the specific tool, states exactly the purposes for which it was and was not used, and affirms author review and responsibility, consistent with current ICMJE disclosure expectations, rather than providing a vague, unspecific acknowledgment.

Reasons for the gap between the two versions

In both cases, the "falls short" version isn't false — it's simply too generic to demonstrate that the specific, substantive consideration a publisher's policy actually asks for took place. The fix in both cases is the same: name the specifics (which form was completed, which tool was used and for what) rather than a general reassurance.

Key points

Key points

A declaration that appears complete may still fall short of a publisher’s specific requirement. Current ICMJE-aligned expectations for conflict-of-interest and AI-tool disclosures are satisfied by naming the form completed, the specific disclosure (or the confirmed absence of a disclosure in each category), and the specific tool and its scope of use.

Practical application

Practical application

  1. A blanket ‘no conflicts’ statement should be replaced by confirmation that the ICMJE form was completed. Any actual disclosure should also be named specifically, rather than a denial alone being provided.
  2. The specific AI tool and version used should be named, together with an exact statement of the purposes for which it was and was not used. A general acknowledgement that ‘AI was used’ does not meet current disclosure expectations.
  3. The declaration wording requirements of the target journal should be checked. The expected phrasing may vary between publishers even within the same general ICMJE framework.

Frequently asked questions

Many do, or use an equivalent form with the same substantive scope; the current instructions for authors of the specific journal should be checked.

The wording should reflect the actual scope of use; minor language polishing and substantive content generation are different situations that should be described accurately and distinctly, not with identical boilerplate.

This should be stated specifically, by confirming that each relevant category (funding, consulting, patents, stock, and so on) was considered and found to require no disclosure, rather than by a single unqualified denial.

References

  1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest. read 10 October 2026. View ICMJE guidance

Every source above is a peer-reviewed article, a publisher’s record of one, or a standard issued by the body that owns it. Each carries the date it was last read. Where a standard moves, this article is revised rather than left up with a note.

How to cite this article

Pick your referencing style and copy it. Your university or target journal may vary the punctuation — check its guide if it has one.

Pubrica Academy. (2026, October 10). Declarations That Satisfy a Journal and Declarations That Do Not: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Wording. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/examples/declarations-that-satisfy-and-do-not-example/

This article is written to be learned from. Cite it if you are referring to what it says; if you are using the evidence behind it, cite the sources listed above instead.

Declaration specificity check

This should be applied to any declaration before submission.

Does the declaration name the specific form or process completed (not just a conclusion)?
Does it name specific details (tool/version, disclosure category) rather than a general statement?
Does it confirm active consideration of every relevant category, not just a blanket denial?

Pubrica AcademyWritten and maintained by Pubrica’s subject matter experts. Articles are revised when the underlying standards change, and each article states the date on which it was last reviewed.

How Pubrica can help

Pubrica drafts conflict-of-interest and AI-tool disclosure statements that name the specific forms, tools and categories expected by a given publisher, rather than generic boilerplate text.

Submit an enquiry Get your declarations checked against publisher expectations

Explore

Related Academy articles

Selected from the same topic and category, with the most recent first.

Template

Declaration and disclosure wording

Authorship, funding, conflicts, data availability and editing-assistance statements worded to satisfy ICMJE and the major publishers.

10 October 2026 · 7 min read

Article

Frontiers Built Its Own AI Tool for Reviewers, So They Would Not Need an External One

Frontiers states that “Authors should not list a generative AI technology as a co-author or author”, because such a tool “cannot be held…

8 October 2026 · 7 min read

Article

PLOS’s Own Authorship Policy Does Not Mention AI at All

PLOS’s authorship page sets out three required criteria, adopted from the ICMJE-aligned McNutt et al. (2018) guidance since May 2023, and…

8 October 2026 · 7 min read

Find something else

Search the Pubrica Academy

Access is free and requires no account. Enter a topic, or open the full library to filter by category, sub-topic or resource type.

Review of conflict-of-interest and AI-disclosure wording before submission

A scoping assessment is free and takes two business days. It provides a written assessment of what the work requires and which specialist would undertake it.

Get a free quote Ask about your own case
Get a free quote

Regulations

Check your project against this rule

  1. 1Your work
  2. 2Your details
  3. 3Send
What do you need?

Material you send is held under signed confidentiality, with access limited to the assigned team and encrypted transfer. It is not used to train anything and is not passed to third-party tools. Ask for the agreement before you send anything you would rather cover first.