Editorial guide · prepared with AI assistance · Expert assessments
Conflict-of-interest disclosure: what to record in an expert review
Use a practical disclosure record for funded expert reviews: relevant relationships, dates, roles, controls and unresolved limits, without confusing disclosure with proof.
A useful conflict-of-interest disclosure explains the relationships a reader needs to evaluate an assessment: who funded the work, relevant employment or advisory roles, financial interests and other connections that may affect judgment. State the relationship and its role clearly. Disclosure enables scrutiny; it does not prove bias, remove bias or replace evidence.
Describe the relationship before judging its effect
The words independent and no conflicts do not give a reader much to inspect. A specific statement is more useful: the author was paid a fixed fee by the assessed company, advised a competitor until a stated date, or received a sample for testing. Keep factual relationships separate from an accusation that somebody manipulated the result.
ICMJE’s medical-journal guidance distinguishes direct support for the work from wider financial and nonfinancial relationships. It also notes that a relationship does not always indicate problematic influence. This guide borrows that distinction for an evidence record; it does not impose medical-journal rules on every commercial review. [S22]
Relevance depends on the question. A past employer could matter greatly in an assessment of that employer’s product and barely matter in an unrelated technical task. Ask why a reasonable reader might weigh the finding differently after learning about the relationship. Explain the connection without speculating about hidden motives.
A usable disclosure record
The checklist below is an editorial aid developed for this guide. It does not replace applicable contracts, a publisher’s requirements or professional advice where a disclosure has legal consequences.
| Field | What to record | Why the distinction helps |
|---|---|---|
| Work funding | Sponsor and what the payment supported | Distinguishes this assignment from unrelated support |
| Relationship | Employment, consultancy, ownership, gifts or relevant nonfinancial role | Names the connection rather than a vague conflict label |
| Timing | Current, ended, or continuing during the reviewed period | Keeps an old role from sounding current |
| Connection to question | Which product, competitor or conclusion the relationship concerns | Lets a reader assess material relevance |
| Sponsor role | Input into scope, data, analysis, wording and publication | Separates funding from control |
| Unresolved limit | What could not be checked or disclosed | Prevents a partial record implying completeness |
A hypothetical disclosure that answers real questions
Consider a hypothetical review of a business analytics tool. The author was paid a fixed assessment fee by the tool’s supplier and previously advised a competing supplier. A useful disclosure would name both relationships, describe when the advisory role ended, and state whether any continuing compensation or ownership exists. These are fictional teaching conditions, not relationships attributed to a real expert.
The same disclosure should explain the sponsor’s actual role: for example, supplying a test account and commenting on factual errors, while having no right to rewrite the conclusions. If the sponsor could decide against publication, state that separately. A claim that the author remained independent does not tell the reader whether the public record is selected.
Do not use an example disclosure as a signed statement. Replace every condition with facts the actual author and commissioning party can confirm. If a relationship is disputed, describe the unresolved point and seek clarification before publishing an assertion that could mislead readers or unfairly damage a person.
Keep disclosure with the statement it qualifies
A reader may encounter a conclusion in an excerpt, table, presentation or AI answer rather than on the original page. When you reuse a funded assessment, carry enough disclosure and scope to preserve its meaning. A link to the full report is helpful, but the short extract should not present paid work as an unpaid customer opinion.
US FTC endorsement guidance explains that unexpected material relationships can affect credibility and may require clear, conspicuous disclosure. Its application depends on the circumstances and jurisdiction. A commercial expert assessment is not automatically an endorsement, and this article does not decide legal compliance for a particular publication. [S31]
As an editorial practice, identify funding near the assessment’s introduction and preserve it near reused conclusions where omission would change the impression. Recheck linked source versions and the actual wording when adapting a report for a new platform. A disclosure can become misleading when its date or relationship description is shortened away.
Disclosure is one input to the judgment
An honestly disclosed relationship can coexist with weak methods. A detailed procedure can coexist with a serious conflict. Read the evidence, the investigator’s role and the funding record together. Do not calculate an independence score merely by counting disclosed connections: their relevance and the controls around them matter more than their number.
NamedProof’s public policy says that funded public assessments identify the sponsor and relevant publication terms. Its knowledge-base guides discuss these issues as a commercially interested publisher. A guide about disclosure is not an independent certification of NamedProof or of the experts listed on its site. [NP01] [NP02]
Before reusing an assessment, make a short relationship record from the fields above and ask the responsible author to confirm the facts. Then read the conclusion again with that information beside it. The next decision is whether the evidence and remaining uncertainty justify your use of the report.
Sources and method
NamedProof editorial guide. Prepared with AI-assisted research and synthesis; the cited primary-source passages were checked for this guide. This is not a commissioned expert assessment and has not received human expert review. Examples labelled hypothetical are teaching examples, not client results.
Limitations
- This guide is an editorial evidence aid, not legal advice or a universal disclosure standard.
- A disclosed relationship is not proof of wrongdoing; an undisclosed or unavailable fact should not be invented.
Original contribution
A six-field relationship record and a hypothetical disclosure example distinguishing fact, timing, sponsor role and inference.
Sources
- S22
Disclosure of Relationships, Activities and Conflicts of Interest
Scope: Medical journal research/publication practice.
Limitations: Relationship is not automatic proof of distortion; disclosure does not remove bias. Do not convert guidance to universal commercial contract law.
Material read: Official disclosure sections read
Sources checked:
- S31
Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking
Scope: US FTC endorsement guidance, applicability fact- and jurisdiction-dependent.
Limitations: Not global legal advice or a claim every funded expert assessment is an endorsement. Separate disclosure, actual experience and substantiation.
Material read: Official relevant Q&A read
Sources checked:
- NP01
NamedProof: About
Scope: NamedProof public description of commissioned assessments and generated profiles, checked 17 October 2026.
Limitations: Service policy and stated process; not evidence of completed client outcomes or an independently certified control.
Material read: Official source read; details in scope and limitations
Sources checked:
- NP02
NamedProof: Independence and ethics
Scope: NamedProof authorship, compensation and publication policy, checked 17 October 2026.
Limitations: Manual editorial standards; not a guarantee of zero bias or automatic proof of authorship.
Material read: Official source read; details in scope and limitations
Sources checked: