While I totally agree about non-industry funding sources warranting mentions too (to say nothing about non-funding sources of bias, which I think you're right to point out), aren't people already supposed to disclose that work was funded by this or that grant? (You certainly see stuff about grant funding in the prefaces/acknowledgements for books. I thought we have them at the end of articles too, but I might be misremembering.)
I've certainly seen people acknowledge funding (and presumably done so myself). I don't know how universal the policy is. Does it matter that they aren't COI disclosures per se? Probably not.
In my work as a journal editor, I’ve seen nearly a dozen papers that read like AI writing (and desk rejected nearly all of them). Interestingly, the plurality of them are making exactly the kind of argument you note the field loves, about how reliance on AI has one or another epistemological problem. Apparently AI-written articles are even more likely to come to this conclusion than non-AI-written articles. Not exactly what one would expect from a naive conflict of interest theory.
“If you find out someone’s research is funded by the Mellon Foundation, its credibility slips.” Hmm, Mellon incentivized research on the topic of social justice, but not particular conclusions. The main bias toward certain conclusions probably comes most from the researchers. If the credibility slips for this reason alone, does credibility slip for any grant calling for research on a particular topic? That’s most grants, so seems like a reductio.
Not just any conclusions -- you can't advance social justice by arguing that capitalism increases wellbeing and freedom, etc.
I think credibility slips for the same reason that applies to industry funded research. Incentivizes people, or work, that is compromised by many invisible choices. Or that is accurate but misleading. It also (actually, unlike AI companies) floods the zone.
While I totally agree about non-industry funding sources warranting mentions too (to say nothing about non-funding sources of bias, which I think you're right to point out), aren't people already supposed to disclose that work was funded by this or that grant? (You certainly see stuff about grant funding in the prefaces/acknowledgements for books. I thought we have them at the end of articles too, but I might be misremembering.)
I've certainly seen people acknowledge funding (and presumably done so myself). I don't know how universal the policy is. Does it matter that they aren't COI disclosures per se? Probably not.
In my work as a journal editor, I’ve seen nearly a dozen papers that read like AI writing (and desk rejected nearly all of them). Interestingly, the plurality of them are making exactly the kind of argument you note the field loves, about how reliance on AI has one or another epistemological problem. Apparently AI-written articles are even more likely to come to this conclusion than non-AI-written articles. Not exactly what one would expect from a naive conflict of interest theory.
Trying to take journal slots from actual philosophers working on epistemic injustice? That's a serious epistemic injustice.
“If you find out someone’s research is funded by the Mellon Foundation, its credibility slips.” Hmm, Mellon incentivized research on the topic of social justice, but not particular conclusions. The main bias toward certain conclusions probably comes most from the researchers. If the credibility slips for this reason alone, does credibility slip for any grant calling for research on a particular topic? That’s most grants, so seems like a reductio.
Not just any conclusions -- you can't advance social justice by arguing that capitalism increases wellbeing and freedom, etc.
I think credibility slips for the same reason that applies to industry funded research. Incentivizes people, or work, that is compromised by many invisible choices. Or that is accurate but misleading. It also (actually, unlike AI companies) floods the zone.