Conflict of Interest Disclosures for Authors

Scientific publishing depends on trust. Readers need to believe that research findings have been reported accurately, that authors have interpreted evidence objectively, and that editorial decisions are made independently. One important part of maintaining that trust is the transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that an author has acted improperly or that published findings are unreliable. Rather, it refers to a circumstance, relationship, or interest that could influence or could reasonably be perceived as influencing the objectivity of research, interpretation, or reporting. For authors, the purpose of disclosure is therefore not to eliminate every possible competing interest, but to make relevant interests visible so that editors, reviewers, and readers can evaluate the research with appropriate context.

For authors submitting to Crosslink Studies (CLS), transparent disclosure is particularly important because CLS explicitly requires authors, editors, and reviewers to declare conflicts of interest. Its policies also prohibit undisclosed conflicts and provide mechanisms for addressing ethical concerns when they arise.

What Is a Conflict of Interest?

A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, professional judgment concerning the primary objectives of research.

The secondary interest may be financial, professional, personal, academic, or otherwise relevant to the study. The important issue is not whether the author believes that the interest actually influenced the research. The question is whether a reasonable reader, reviewer, or editor might consider the relationship relevant to the interpretation of the work.

Financial Interests Are Only One Part of the Picture

Financial relationships are among the most familiar forms of conflict of interest. They may include employment by an interested organization, consultancy arrangements, research funding, stock ownership, honoraria, patents, licensing agreements, or other commercial relationships.

For example, an author evaluating the performance of a technology product may have received research funding from the company that developed the product. Similarly, a researcher reporting results concerning a patented algorithm may hold intellectual-property rights connected to that technology. Such circumstances do not automatically invalidate the research. However, they are relevant information that readers should be able to evaluate.

Non-Financial Conflicts Deserve Attention Too

Some authors mistakenly assume that a conflict of interest exists only when money is involved. In reality, professional and personal circumstances can also create relevant competing interests.

Examples may include a close professional relationship with an organization involved in the research, a strong personal relationship with a study participant or collaborator, membership of an advisory body, leadership of an organization affected by the findings, or a professional position that could benefit from a particular research conclusion.

The appropriate approach is not to declare every personal circumstance imaginable. Instead, authors should disclose relationships that are relevant to the work and could reasonably be perceived as influencing its objectivity. Wiley specifically recommends considering both financial and personal, political, or other interests when assessing conflicts.

Funding and Sponsor Involvement Should Be Clearly Reported

Funding disclosures deserve particular attention because financial support can involve more than simply receiving money.

Authors should consider whether a funder had any role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. If a sponsor had no such role, stating this clearly can help readers understand the independence of the research.

Patents, Intellectual Property, and Commercialization

Technology researchers should pay particular attention to intellectual-property interests. An author may hold a patent related to the system being evaluated, have a pending patent application, receive royalties from a technology, or be involved with an organization seeking to commercialize the research.

These circumstances can be particularly important in engineering, artificial intelligence, information systems, telecommunications, software development, biomedical technology, and other innovation-driven fields.

Disclosure does not mean that the author must abandon the research or that the manuscript cannot be published. Instead, transparency allows readers to understand the author’s relationship with the technology and assess the findings accordingly.

When There Is No Conflict, Say So

Another important aspect of responsible disclosure is making a clear statement when no relevant conflict exists.

Silence is not necessarily equivalent to a declaration of no conflict. Many journals expect an explicit statement confirming the absence of competing interests.

For example, an appropriate statement may be:

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Authors should never use a generic “no conflict” statement simply because it appears convenient. The declaration should reflect an actual assessment of all authors’ relevant interests.

Every Author Should Be Involved in the Disclosure Process

The corresponding author often enters the declaration during submission, but conflict-of-interest disclosure is a responsibility shared by the entire author team.

In a multi-author interdisciplinary study, different researchers may have different relationships with funders, companies, institutions, technologies, or professional organizations. One author may have no relevant interests while another holds a patent or consultancy connected with the research. Before submission, the corresponding author should therefore ask every co-author to review the disclosure carefully.

Where Should the Disclosure Appear?

Authors should follow the specific instructions of the journal to which they are submitting. Depending on the journal, the disclosure may be collected through the submission system and also included in the manuscript.

The key principle is consistency. Information supplied during submission should correspond with the declaration appearing in the manuscript.

For example, if an author reports a consultancy relationship through the submission system but the manuscript states that there are no conflicts, the inconsistency can create unnecessary editorial questions.

What Happens When a Conflict Is Disclosed?

Disclosure should not be viewed as an admission of misconduct.

In many cases, the appropriate response is simply transparency. Editors and reviewers can take the disclosed relationship into account when assessing the manuscript. Depending on the nature of the conflict, an editor may also introduce safeguards to protect the independence of peer review.

The same principle applies to reviewers and editors. CLS requires reviewers to disclose potential conflicts before accepting a review, and its peer-review guidance emphasizes avoiding conflicts that could compromise impartiality.

The purpose is therefore not to exclude researchers who have legitimate professional interests, but to manage potential bias transparently and protect the integrity of the scholarly process.

Correcting an Omitted Conflict After Publication

Authors should also understand that disclosure responsibilities do not necessarily end when an article is published.

If a relevant competing interest was accidentally omitted, authors should contact the journal promptly rather than waiting for the issue to be discovered by someone else. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish a correction or other editorial notice.

CLS explicitly identifies omitted author competing-interest information as an example of information that may require correction after publication. This reflects a broader principle of responsible publishing: correcting the scholarly record is preferable to allowing incomplete information to remain available to readers.

A Practical Approach Before Submission

Before submitting a manuscript, authors should review their financial, professional, academic, personal, and intellectual-property relationships in the context of the specific study. Consider the funding source, employment relationships, consultancies, patents, commercial interests, advisory positions, relevant collaborations, and other circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research.

The goal is not to produce an unnecessarily long declaration. It is to provide a complete, relevant, and understandable account of interests that could affect the perception or interpretation of the work. Authors should then ensure that the declaration is consistent across the manuscript and submission system and that every co-author has reviewed the final wording.

Transparency Strengthens Research Credibility

Conflict-of-interest disclosure is ultimately about protecting trust in scientific communication. Researchers do not need to be free from every professional or financial relationship to produce credible science. What matters is that relevant relationships are identified and communicated transparently.

For Crosslink Studies authors, this principle fits directly within the publisher’s broader emphasis on research integrity, ethical publication practices, and transparent peer review. A well-written conflict-of-interest statement therefore does more than satisfy a submission requirement. It gives editors, reviewers, and readers the information they need to understand the research in context. Transparency does not weaken credible research; it strengthens it.