Publication Audit Checklist

Use this checklist before release and after a substantive revision or translation. An audit is an evidence-based review, not a guarantee of correctness or a substitute for peer review.

English spelling: US. The German companion is aligned to version 1.1. Use the publication preparation guide for planning and source-backed guidance.

Audit record

Work and file:
Document type and language:
Version / source version:
Audit date:
Audit scope:
Auditor(s):
Venue and author-instructions URL / date checked:
Release decision: Pass / Pass with actions / Blocked

For each item, record Verified, Unverified, Not applicable (with a reason), or a finding ID in the audit report. A tick means verified, not merely considered. Save completed reports in the root audits directory with work ID, version, and language in the filename.

Identity and structure

[ ] Topic, title, document type, description, language, and version are accurate and consistent.
[ ] The question, contribution, audience, scope, and exclusions are clear.
[ ] The structure fits the document type and the intended venue.
[ ] Headings, internal links, citations, figures, tables, and appendices resolve and agree.
[ ] Publication and review status are stated accurately.

Claims, argument, and evidence

[ ] Definitions, assumptions, premises, and inferential steps are explicit and consistent.
[ ] Conclusions follow from the stated reasons; relevant alternatives and strong objections are addressed.
[ ] Empirical claims have appropriate, traceable evidence and are not presented more strongly than the evidence permits.
[ ] Definitions, logical consequences, philosophical arguments, empirical results, model assumptions, personal experience, hypotheses, speculation, and metaphors are not conflated.
[ ] Uncertainty, limitations, and unresolved questions are visible.
[ ] THE DOT, game fiction, mechanics, and metaphors are not presented as verified physical facts.

Source-integrity audit

[ ] Every reference exists; bibliographic details, edition, DOI/URL, and access information are correct where applicable.
[ ] Each quotation, paraphrase, and locator was checked against the cited source.
[ ] Sources support the specific claims attributed to them; relevant qualifications and counterevidence are represented.
[ ] No citation, quotation, page number, dataset, result, or source-verification claim was invented.
[ ] Primary sources are used where appropriate, and reading status is not overstated.
[ ] Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern affecting cited work have been checked on publisher records where available, and their implications have been assessed.

Language and translation

[ ] The language variant and spelling conventions are consistent.
[ ] Document-type terminology follows the terminology guide; manuscript-specific terms are defined and used consistently.
[ ] Translation is checked against the exact source version and preserves meaning, evidence strength, and uncertainty.
[ ] Names, dates, numbers, units, symbols, equations, quotations, citations, metadata, and links match across versions.
[ ] Original-language quotations and translated quotations are identified appropriately.
[ ] Translations record Original_language, Translation_of, and Source_version; permission and venue approval for any secondary publication have been checked where required.

Ethics and release

[ ] Venue and disciplinary requirements have been checked against current instructions.
[ ] Permissions, copyright, privacy, participant protections, and data access are addressed.
[ ] Required AI-use, funding, conflict-of-interest, ethics, and data/code disclosures are present.
[ ] The version, outlet, and actual review/publication status are clear.
[ ] The strongest reasonable reviewer objections have been recorded and addressed or acknowledged.

Submission and preservation

[ ] The venue's scope, accepted article type, word limits, reference style, abstract, keywords, required files, fees, and waiver options have been checked.
[ ] Where anonymous review is required, the reviewer-facing manuscript, supplements, file properties, comments, and tracked changes do not reveal the authors; identifying information is provided separately as instructed.
[ ] Authorship, contributor roles, author order, affiliation, and approval of the exact submitted version are accurate; AI tools are not credited as authors.
[ ] AI-use records identify the tool, version if available, date, purpose, affected material, and human verification; the actual venue's permission and disclosure rules are satisfied.
[ ] Preprints, related work, and translations are disclosed as required; simultaneous submission is avoided unless explicitly permitted by all relevant venues.
[ ] Applicable reporting guidelines, registration, ethics approval, and data/code requirements are satisfied; inapplicable requirements are explained rather than fabricated.
[ ] A dated submission copy and audit record are preserved; any repository deposit uses an authorized version, suitable license, accurate status, and version-specific identifier where available.
[ ] The final exported document has been inspected for readable text, heading order, figures and alternative descriptions, working links, and correct symbols and references.

Findings and decision

Record each finding with a location, evidence, severity, required action, and status.

Severity definitions: Blocker = integrity, legal, or release-status failure; Major = material content or translation defect; Minor = limited correction; Note = advisory.

ID	Severity (`Blocker` / `Major` / `Minor` / `Note`)	Location	Finding and evidence	Required action	Status

Release rule: Any unresolved Blocker or Major finding prevents release. Do not mark an item as passed when it could not be verified; record it as unverified and explain why.

Use Pass with actions only for nonblocking Minor findings, with an owner and due date. An unverified release-critical requirement prevents a pass. A checklist pass is neither journal acceptance nor peer review.