# Verification Before Publication > Use before claiming results are publication-ready, before submitting manuscripts, or before sharing findings externally — requires fresh verification evidence for every claim - Skill: `jeonnoin-alt/verification-before-publication` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jeonnoin-alt/verification-before-publication` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jeonnoin-alt/verification-before-publication/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: jeonnoin-alt (https://skillmd.com/u/jeonnoin-alt) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jeonnoin-alt/verification-before-publication --- # Verification Before Publication ## Overview Claiming results are publication-ready without verification is not confidence — it is a liability to your co-authors, your field, and your career. **Core principle:** Evidence before submission, always. **Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.** ## The Iron Law ``` NO SUBMISSION CLAIM WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE ``` If you haven't re-run the verification in this session, you cannot claim it is ready for submission. ## The Gate Function ``` BEFORE claiming publication-ready: 1. IDENTIFY: What evidence proves each claim? 2. RUN: Re-run key analyses fresh (not cached results) 3. READ: Full output, check every number 4. VERIFY: Does output match manuscript claims? - If NO: State actual values with evidence - If YES: State verification WITH evidence 5. ONLY THEN: Claim ready for submission Skip any step = asserting, not verifying ``` ## Common Failures | Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient | |-------|----------|----------------| | Results are accurate | claims-audit PASS | "I checked last week" | | Figures are correct | Re-generated figures match manuscript | "They look right" | | Analysis is reproducible | Single command reproduces all results | "It worked on my machine" | | Statistics are proper | hypothesis-first INTERPRET standards met (effect size + CI + correction) | "p-values are significant" | | All results reported | Experiment log cross-referenced with manuscript | "Main results are in" | ## Red Flags — STOP - Using "should be", "probably fine", "I'm confident" - Expressing readiness before verification ("It's ready", "We're good to go", "Just needs a polish") - About to submit or share without re-running analyses - Relying on results from a previous session - Trusting cached outputs without checking they match current code - Thinking "just this once — deadline is today" - Under pressure from collaborators or journal deadlines - **ANY wording implying submission-readiness without having run fresh verification** ## Rationalization Prevention | Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "Should be ready now" | RUN the verification | | "I'm confident in the numbers" | Confidence is not evidence | | "Checked last week" | Last week's check is not this week's evidence | | "Just minor revisions since last check" | Minor changes can invalidate figures and tables | | "Deadline pressure" | A retraction is worse than a delayed submission | | "The reviewer will catch errors" | Peer review is not your QC pipeline | | "I know this codebase" | Knowing the codebase does not prevent stale outputs | | "Different wording so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter | | "Co-authors approved it" | Co-authors approved what they saw, not what is current | | "The analysis passed review last month" | Results are only as valid as the last verified run | | "We've published this method before" | This manuscript's numbers still need fresh verification | | "The figures look identical to the last version" | Look identical is not verified identical | ## Publication-Specific Verification Checklist Complete every item before claiming submission-ready. No skipping. **Claims and Accuracy** - [ ] claims-audit PASS — every manuscript claim has a traceable evidence source - [ ] **Freshness check** — read the most recent `docs/eureka/audits/YYYY-MM-DD-claims-audit.md` frontmatter. Verify `manuscript_hash` and `results_hash` match the current manuscript + results. If hashes mismatch, **soft-warn**: the audit may be stale; consider re-running. Proceed at user's discretion (soft warning, not hard block) - [ ] **Upstream artifact presence** — confirm the following canonical-path artifacts exist and are fresh (YAML frontmatter `status: passed`): - `docs/eureka/audits/YYYY-MM-DD-claims-audit.md` - `docs/eureka/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md` (research-reviewer ≥ 95/100) - `docs/eureka/novelty-audits/YYYY-MM-DD-novelty-audit.md` (novelty-competitive-audit PASS) **Figures** - [ ] Figures regenerated from scripts (not loaded from stale file) - [ ] Every figure number and label matches the manuscript text - [ ] Every figure legend states `n`, statistical test, error bar type (SEM/SD/95%CI), and center value (or confirms N/A for the figure type) - [ ] Every figure with statistical inference has exact p-values OR in-legend-defined asterisks - [ ] Every image panel labeled "representative of N independent experiments" or states quantification N - [ ] No dynamite plots (bar + whisker of mean alone) where raw overlay is feasible (N per group ≤ 50) **Reproducibility** - [ ] Experiments reproducible from configs + recorded seeds - [ ] Environment specification committed (requirements.txt / environment.yml) - [ ] Seeds recorded for every experiment with stochastic components - [ ] Single command reproduces the full results pipeline (reproduce.sh or equivalent) **Review** - [ ] research-reviewer PASS at pre-submission threshold (≥ 95/100) - [ ] All CRITICAL issues resolved - [ ] All MAJOR issues resolved (no open MAJOR issues deferred to revision) **Reporting Completeness** - [ ] Negative results reported, not selectively omitted - [ ] All pre-registered outcomes reported, including null results **Manuscript Metadata** - [ ] Data availability statement present and accurate - [ ] Data version and preprocessing pipeline version explicitly stated in Methods section - [ ] Code availability statement present and accurate - [ ] Author contributions clear and complete - [ ] Conflicts of interest declared ## Reproducibility Sub-Check These must pass independently before the main checklist is considered complete. - [ ] Random seeds fixed and recorded for every experiment - [ ] Config files saved alongside every result file - [ ] Environment spec committed (requirements.txt / environment.yml) - [ ] `reproduce.sh` or equivalent exists, is committed, and runs end-to-end - [ ] Results directory has README explaining file structure and how outputs map to manuscript - [ ] Raw → processed data is regeneratable from a single command (preprocessing pipeline scripted, versioned, and runnable) - [ ] Data version claimed in the manuscript matches the data actually used in the analysis (verified by file hash comparison against the registration) **Failure on any sub-check item means the analysis is not reproducible.** An irreproducible analysis cannot be submitted. ## Key Patterns **Results match manuscript:** ``` PASS: [Re-run analysis] [Compare output values to Table 2] [All numbers match] FAIL: "The numbers should match — I haven't changed anything" ``` **Figures regenerated:** ``` PASS: [Run figure scripts] [Diff outputs against manuscript PDFs] [Match confirmed] FAIL: "The figure looks the same as last time" ``` **Reproducibility verified:** ``` PASS: [Run reproduce.sh from scratch in clean environment] [All results regenerated] FAIL: "It worked on my machine before" ``` **Statistics verified:** ``` PASS: [Verify every result has effect size + 95% CI + correction method per docs/references/statistical-guide.md] [No uncorrected multiple comparisons] FAIL: "The p-values are significant — statistics are fine" ``` **Completeness verified:** ``` PASS: [Cross-reference experiment log] [Every run in log accounted for in manuscript] FAIL: "The main results are all in there" ``` ## Why This Matters Publication errors propagate. A wrong number in a published table becomes a cited number in the next paper, a misinterpreted figure becomes a consensus, and an irreproducible analysis becomes a failed replication. Post-publication corrections damage credibility and waste the field's resources. The gate function exists because the cost of verifying before submission is hours; the cost of a published error is years. ## When To Apply **ALWAYS before:** - Submitting to any journal, conference, or preprint server - Sharing results externally (collaborators, supervisors, funders) - ANY claim that results are publication-ready - Responding to reviewer comments with "we have verified..." - Uploading final manuscript files to any submission system **Rule applies to:** - Exact "ready to submit" phrases - Paraphrases: "good to go", "polished", "final version" - Implications of readiness - ANY communication suggesting the manuscript is in final state ## Integration - **Requires:** `eureka:claims-audit` PASS — every claim must be traceable before this skill's checklist begins - **Requires:** `eureka:requesting-research-review` PASS at ≥ 95/100 — scientific rigor validated by independent review - **Requires:** `eureka:hypothesis-first` INTERPRET standards met — every statistical result reports effect size, CI, and correction method - **Requires:** `eureka:novelty-competitive-audit` PASS — external competitiveness verified against recent literature (internal rigor is necessary but not sufficient for submission) - **Feeds into:** submission-readiness assessment — this gate is the final check before external submission - **Called by:** `eureka:using-eureka` when submission intent is detected - **Reference:** `docs/references/statistical-guide.md` — statistical reporting checklist - **Reference:** `docs/references/data-checklist.md` — data version locking, preprocessing reproducibility, raw→processed regeneration - **Reference:** `docs/references/figure-guide.md` — see sections **"Figure Legend Requirements (Reviewer-Grade)"** and **"Common Reviewer Rejection Reasons for Figures"** for the legend reporting checklist and the dynamite-plot anti-pattern - **Reference:** `docs/references/novelty-audit-guide.md` — search strategy, preemption rubric, differentiation templates, verdict decision tree for the `novelty-competitive-audit` prerequisite ## The Bottom Line No shortcuts for submission verification. Re-run the analyses. Regenerate the figures. Check every number. THEN claim it is ready. This is non-negotiable. ## Skill Type **RIGID** — The checklist is not optional. The gate function sequence is enforced. The Iron Law is not a guideline. The only flexibility is in the tooling used to re-run analyses — adapt scripts, commands, and environments to your domain. The requirement to produce fresh verification evidence before claiming submission-readiness does not flex.