conflict-of-interest-checker
npx machina-cli add skill aipoch/medical-research-skills/conflict-of-interest-checker --openclawConflict of Interest Checker
Reviewer conflict detection tool.
Use Cases
- Journal submission prep
- Editorial decisions
- Peer review integrity
- Compliance verification
Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Default | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
--authors, -a | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated author names |
--reviewers, -r | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated reviewer names |
--publications, -p | string | - | No | CSV file with publication records |
CSV Format
author,reviewer,paper_id
Smith,Brown,paper1
Smith,Jones,paper2
Usage
# Check with demo data
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones,Lee" --reviewers "Brown,Davis,Wilson"
# Check with publication records
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones" --reviewers "Brown,Davis" --publications pubs.csv
Returns
- Conflict flagging (coauthorship, institutional)
- Shared publication list
- Recommendation: Accept/Recuse
- Alternative reviewer suggestions
Example Output
⚠ Found 2 potential conflict(s):
1. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
Reviewer: Brown
Author: Smith
Shared papers: paper1
2. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
Reviewer: Wilson
Author: Smith
Shared papers: paper2
Risk Assessment
| Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level |
|---|---|---|
| Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium |
| Network Access | No external API calls | Low |
| File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium |
| Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low |
| Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |
Security Checklist
- No hardcoded credentials or API keys
- No unauthorized file system access (../)
- Output does not expose sensitive information
- Prompt injection protections in place
- Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
- Output directory restricted to workspace
- Script execution in sandboxed environment
- Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
- Dependencies audited
Prerequisites
No additional Python packages required.
Evaluation Criteria
Success Metrics
- Successfully executes main functionality
- Output meets quality standards
- Handles edge cases gracefully
- Performance is acceptable
Test Cases
- Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
- Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
- Performance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time
Lifecycle Status
- Current Stage: Draft
- Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
- Known Issues: None
- Planned Improvements:
- Performance optimization
- Additional feature support
Source
git clone https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills/blob/main/scientific-skills/Academic writing/conflict-of-interest-checker/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
Conflict of Interest Checker finds potential co-authorship and institutional conflicts between authors and suggested reviewers. It supports journal submission prep, editorial decisions, peer review integrity, and compliance verification by flagging overlaps and listing shared papers. The tool returns a conflict flag, shared publications, and reviewer recommendations to guide recusal or alternative reviewer selection.
How This Skill Works
It accepts author and reviewer lists and an optional publications dataset. It cross-references names against co-authorship and shared affiliations to identify overlaps, then outputs COAUTHORSHIP or INSTITUTIONAL conflicts, a list of shared papers, and recommended actions.
When to Use It
- Journal submission prep
- Editorial decisions
- Peer review integrity
- Compliance verification
- Reviewer assignment planning
Quick Start
- Step 1: Prepare a list of authors and reviewers using --authors and --reviewers
- Step 2: (Optional) provide a publications CSV with --publications to improve accuracy
- Step 3: Run the checker (e.g., python scripts/main.py ...) and review the conflicts, shared papers, and recommendations
Best Practices
- Provide exact author and reviewer names as they appear in publications
- Include a complete publications CSV when available
- Run checks early in the submission or assignment process
- Review both coauthorship and institutional conflicts
- Keep outputs private and limit access to the involved parties
Example Use Cases
- Manuscript submission flags co-authorship conflict between Author Smith and Reviewer Brown, with shared papers: paper1.
- Editorial decision flags an institutional overlap between Author Lee and Reviewer Davis.
- Peer-review workflow suggests alternative reviewer Wilson due to shared publications with an author.
- Compliance check confirms conflicts exist against policy and requires reviewer recusal.
- Large-scale audit identifies multiple co-authorship conflicts across several reviewer-author pairs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Skills
dei-statement-drafter
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Draft Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statements for academic applications
funding-trend-forecaster
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Predict funding trend shifts using NLP analysis of grant abstracts from
figure-legend-gen
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Generate standardized figure legends for scientific charts and graphs.
figure-reference-checker
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Check figure references in manuscripts
discussion-section-architect
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Guided framework for structuring academic Discussion sections
conference-poster-pitch
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Generate elevator pitch for conference posters
