Conflict of Interest Checker#

Reviewer conflict detection tool.

Use Cases#

• Journal submission prep
• Editorial decisions
• Peer review integrity
• Compliance verification

Parameters#

ParameterTypeDefaultRequiredDescription--authors, -astring-YesComma-separated author names--reviewers, -rstring-YesComma-separated reviewer names--publications, -pstring-NoCSV file with publication records

CSV Format#

csv

author,reviewer,paper_id
Smith,Brown,paper1
Smith,Jones,paper2

Usage#

bash

# 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#

text

⚠ 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 IndicatorAssessmentLevelCode ExecutionPython/R scripts executed locallyMediumNetwork AccessNo external API callsLowFile System AccessRead input files, write output filesMediumInstruction TamperingStandard prompt guidelinesLowData ExposureOutput files saved to workspaceLow

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#

1. Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
2. Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
3. 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