Compliance Statement Checking
Pubrica checks the compliance statements in journal submissions before editorial assessment. Our editorial checkers work for journals, publishers and editorial offices. They confirm that each submission carries the ethics approval, consent, conflict of interest, funding, trial registration and data availability statements required for its article type, and deliver an actionable checklist for every submission.
- Checked against the requirements of the article type, because a trial, a review and a case report carry different obligations
- Trial registration verified: we confirm that the number resolves and that registration was prospective
- Conflict of interest statements sense-checked against publicly available disclosures, where “none declared” statements most often fail
- Data availability assessed against journal and funder policy, since a statement referring readers to the corresponding author satisfies fewer policies each year
- Reported as a checklist per submission, so the editorial office can act on the findings directly
Ethics, consent and approval statementsIncluded
COI, funding and authorshipIncluded
Trial registration verificationIncluded
Data availability assessmentIncluded
Editorial decision on the paperRemains with the editor
Submission → classified → checked → verified → checklist
- Checked against the article type
- Registration numbers resolved
- COI statements checked against public records
- Data statement assessed against policy
- Reported as an actionable checklist
Deliverables
Four Components of Every Compliance Statement Check
Each submission is checked against the requirements of its article type. Every check includes the four components below.
From the classificationArticle type determined first, then the checklist derived from it — your journal policy, ICMJE requirements and any reporting guideline the type triggers.
From the verificationTrial registration: NCT[number]. Present.Number resolves; registration date precedes first enrolment; the registered primary outcome matches the reported primary outcome. The third check most often identifies problems.
From the COI checkThe authors declare no competing interests.Two of six authors have declared relationships in publications from the past 24 months that are not disclosed here. Flagged for the editor to raise with the authors; Pubrica draws no conclusion.
From the data checkData available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Does not satisfy the journal policy for clinical trials, and does not satisfy the stated funder’s condition. Flagged with what would satisfy both.
The samples shown are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Compliance Statement Standards and Guidelines
Your journal policy takes precedence. These are the standards on which journal policies are usually based.
ICMJE Recommendations (authorship and declarations)
Covers authorship criteria, contributor roles, conflict of interest, funding and data statements: the declarations an article is expected to carry.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
Sets out what a journal is expected to check, record and act on, and the flowcharts it follows when a problem arises.
Reporting guidelines (CONSORT 2025, PRISMA 2020, STROBE, ARRIVE)
We identify the checklist the article type requires and confirm that the submission includes a completed copy. CONSORT and SPIRIT were updated to 2025 versions last year.
Trial and review registration (ClinicalTrials.gov, CTIS, CTRI, PROSPERO)
We confirm that the registration exists, resolves, was prospective and matches what the paper reports.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use and Disclosure
AI tools support specific, checkable tasks. Editorial judgement, final wording and sign-off remain with Pubrica subject specialists.
Why We Do Not Publish an AI Accuracy Figure
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote a self-generated accuracy figure, because it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Our Process
How Compliance Statement Checking Works
We classify each submission first, so that the report covers only the requirements that apply to it.
Classify the article type
The article type determines which statements are required, so a trial checklist is never applied to a narrative review.
Check the Required Statements
We check ethics approval and approval number, consent, conflicts of interest, funding, authorship, data availability and any requirement specific to the article type.
Verify Registrations and Declarations
We resolve and date registration numbers, confirm that reporting checklists are present and complete, and check declared relationships against the public record.
Report Findings as a Checklist
We deliver one actionable checklist per submission, with findings ranked, so the editorial office can act without re-reading the paper.
Our experts
Your Compliance Statement Checking Team
A named team of subject specialists stays with your project from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. Each expert is matched to your field of research.
Edits for clarity, grammar, structure and consistency while preserving the author voice and scientific meaning.
Checks the finished work independently against the agreed scope and the applicable checklist. Findings are logged and resolved before delivery.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Packages
Compliance Statement Checking Packages
Pricing depends on the mix of article types and on volume, because trials take longer to check than reviews.
Submission screening
For journals screening submissions before editorial assessment
Quoted per projectOn article type and volume
Delivery By volume
- ✓Article type classified
- ✓All required statements checked
- ✓Registration verified and dated
- ✓COI sense-checked against the public record
- ✓Data statement assessed against policy
- ✓Actionable checklist per submission
Screening before editorial assessment means editors spend their time on the science.
Deliverables Request a quoteStanding screening
For journals and publishers with high submission volumes
Quoted per projectOn monthly volume and type mix
Delivery By arrangement
- ✓One screening method across your portfolio
- ✓Pattern reporting across submissions
- ✓Author guidance improved where failures recur
- ✓Integrated into your submission workflow
- ✓Escalation route for integrity concerns
Recurring failures usually indicate unclear author guidance, which costs less to correct than to screen for repeatedly.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend ten recent submissions and we will screen them free of charge and report which requirements fail most often. Data availability statements and trial registration dates are frequent areas of non-compliance.
FAQs
Compliance Statement Checking FAQs
If your question is not listed here, ask an expert. No quote is required.
It should sit before editorial assessment. Statement problems are administrative, and it is costly for an editor to be the person who discovers them.
Screening first means the editor sees submissions that are complete, and the author gets one consolidated request rather than three.
The most frequent failures are data availability statements that do not satisfy the journal or funder policy, and trial registrations that are retrospective or whose registered outcomes do not match the reported outcomes.
Conflict of interest failures are less frequent but more serious. The most common is an undeclared relationship that is publicly documented.
No. We flag concerns, provide the supporting evidence and escalate them, and the editor makes the decision. Concluding on integrity would be an editorial decision outside the remit of a screening service.
A concern that needs full investigation follows a separate process, which COPE guidance sets out.
Partly. Checking that a statement is present and that a registration number resolves can be automated reliably. Judging whether a data statement satisfies a policy, or whether a declaration is complete, cannot.
We use automation for the first type of check and subject specialists for the second, which keeps the service affordable at volume.
Related services
Related Editorial Office Services
Compliance screening is one of several checks an editorial office carries out before an editor sees a paper. These related services cover the others.
1EDITORIAL OFFICE SUPPORTjournal operations
Editorial office servicesPeer review and journal operations. Forensic and quality auditIntegrity and documentation review.2OTHER SUBMISSION CHECKSbefore review
Reference validationChecked against source records. Plagiarism and AI screeningSimilarity and authorship screening.3INTEGRITY AND METHODS REVIEWspecialist review
Research integrity casesCorrections and retractions handled to COPE guidance. Statistical reviewMethods and analysis checked.Request a Free Screening of Ten Recent Submissions
We will report which requirements fail most often. These are usually data availability statements and trial registration dates.