Background: Industry funding of neurosurgery research is on the rise and this creates a conflict of interest (COI) with the potential to bias results. The reporting and handling of COI is impacted by the variation in policies and definitions between journals. In this study we sought to evaluate the prevalence and comprehensiveness of COI policies amongst leading neurosurgical journals. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of publicly available online disclosure policies in the 20 highest-ranking neurosurgical journals, as determined by Google Scholar Metrics, in July of 2016. Results: Eighteen (89.5%) of the top neurosurgical journals included COI policy statements. Ten journals requested declaration of non-financial conflicts, while two journals defined a time period of interest for conflicts. Sixteen journals required declaration from the corresponding author, 13 from all authors, six from reviewers and five from editors. Five journals included COI declaration verification, management or enforcement. Journals with more comprehensive COI policies were significantly more likely to have higher h5-indices (p=0.003) and higher impact factors (p=0.01). Conclusions: In 2016, the majority of high-impact neurosurgical journals had publicly available COI disclosure policies. Policies varied substantially across neurosurgical journals; but COI comprehensiveness was associated with impact factor and h5-index. More comprehensive and consistent COI policies will facilitate increased transparency in neurosurgery research.