Conflicts

• I work full-time to foster the growth of open access to research. I work for it, I consult about it, I write and speak about it, and I take public positions about it. For many of these activities, I'm paid.
  • I try to say only what I believe and what I can defend. To misrepresent my own position could be dishonest or merely careless. I try not to be dishonest (an ethical matter) or careless (a professional matter). Apart from the risk of ethical or professional lapses, it's embarrassing to say something that a truthful person would have to retract, if challenged, and even more embarrassing not to retract it. I also try to avoid this kind of embarrassment. Hence, I have a mix of ethical and prudential reasons not to misrepresent my own views for financial gain or other kinds of benefit.
  • My positions and arguments shift according to what I learn, and I try to learn from as many sources as I can. But I try hard not to let my positions and arguments shift according to my financial interests, including my interest in pleasing the institutions that fund me, or that have funded me in the past. However, I may not always succeed at this. And if I don't succeed, then I might not even notice it. Moreover, even when I do succeed, I want readers to know about potential conflicts of interest. As I see it, a potential conflict (like a past or present salary or grant) is not a reason to curb my advocacy, stop speaking my mind, or stop recommending what I honestly believe is worth recommending. It's a reason for disclosure, so that readers can decide for themselves how to weigh my arguments.

• I have a salary from Harvard University. I publicly defended Harvard's OA practices before I had any financial support from Harvard, starting in 2009. But I continued to do so after 2009, when I got a paid fellowship from Harvard, and after 2013 when started getting a salary from Harvard. Indeed, I continue to do so today.
  • I don't directly raise money for Harvard. But I once spoke at a meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association, and one purpose evident to all was to keep alumni happy and willing to give. When I do my job well, it might have a similar effect of helping Harvard raise money. I've talked directly with a few donors interested in giving to my unit within Harvard. But I limit myself to describing what we do and why I think it's important. I never make the ask. I'm not paid to talk with these potential donors; when they give (and some have) my salary does not go up; when don't give (and some haven't) my salary does not go down.

• I serve on the advisory boards for many organizations. Sometimes I wholeheartedly endorse what these organizations do, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree to join an advisory board when I'm willing to advise, when I think think the organization is willing to hear my advice, when I think it already some good ideas, and when I have time. If the willingness to advise implied a full endorsement, I would accept some but not all of my current advisory positions.
  • When I serve on an advisory board, I do not promote its positions or practices just because I'm a member of the board. Sometimes I promote them because I believe in them. Sometimes I don't promote them at all.
  • When I serve on an advisory board, I do not raise money for the organization, though I will sometimes support its applications for grants.
  • When I serve on an advisory board, I am never paid to do so.

• I consult pro bono on open access. Because I'm not paid for this, I see no conflict of interest. Sometimes this pro bono consulting results in new OA policies or practices. (That was my goal.) But these new policies or practices were always influenced by voices other than mine, and sometimes I do not entirely endorse the results. At least I tried.
  • Sometimes my pro bono consulting is an overload. Sometimes it's grant-supported. In the latter case, grant funds pay me to give time my to organizations asking for my advice.

• I sometimes consult for pay. I never charge non-profits to consult. With for-profits, sometimes I charge and sometimes I don't. I started working as a paid consultant more than 15 years ago, after I gave up my salary as a philosophy professor to work full-time on open access. But when I got more consulting requests than I had time to take on, I raised my price until the requests fell to a manageable level. Today I only take about 1-2 of these jobs a year. Each is usually a one-hour phone call. For the past few years, these consultations have always been with investors who want to know whether the stock prices of major, publicly-traded academic publishers will go up or down. I never express an opinion on those future stock prices, and the investors never ask me. I talk about what's happening with OA and academic publishing, and the investors draw their own conclusions. I don't even know what conclusions they draw!

• I am a non-practicing lawyer. This means that I don't have clients. Hence I'm never in a position to advocate for a client, and don't need to distinguish that kind of private-interest advocacy from my general work, which I consider public-interest advocacy.

• I used to do a lot of public speaking in support of open access. Today, for medical reasons, I do much less of it. Sometimes I take honorariums and sometimes I waive them. But even when I take them, I'm never paid to espouse any position but my own.

• I've often been asked to speak or write about a certain topic, but I've never been asked to take a certain position on that topic. People who invite me to speak or write generally know my positions already, and invite me because they know them.

• In the past I've had salaries or stipends for my OA work from Yale Law School, the Harvard Law School Library, and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. I no longer have any of these salaries or stipends from the first two. But I have a new and ongoing arrangement with Berkman. (See below.)

• I currently have a grant from the Arnold Foundation, starting in September 2016. In the past I've had grants for my OA work from the Open Society Institute (today, the Open Society Foundations), the Wellcome Trust, and the Arcadia Fund. I've had a grant for my work in philosophy from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

• Since funders prefer to give grants to non-profit organizations, rather than individuals, I've made arrangements with non-profits to receive these grants on my behalf. I had these arrangements with Public Knowledge, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. I currently have this kind of arrangement with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.

• When I published my newsletter on OA, I had a subsidy from SPARC, and occasional ads from Data Conversion Laboratory. Neither ever suggested what I should or should not say in the newsletter.

• Bottom line: Although I support OA, and work full-time on it, I don't directly receive money from its success. For example, I own no stock or stock options in any OA publisher or service provider.
  • I benefit indirectly because the success of OA, and the success my own contributions to it, increase the odds that I'll get new grants to work on it, and increase the odds that there will be paying jobs (like my current job) to work on it. However, even in these cases of indirect benefit, neither my grants nor my salary are tied to the progress of OA. Once a funder has accepted my grant application, the amount doesn't increase or decrease, for example, in proportion to the effectiveness of my work. Once I have a salary, the amount is subject to annual pool increases, and the possibility of regulated bonuses, but doesn't increase in proportion to the effectiveness of my work.
  • I don't have a salary, grant, or any other kind of financial support from any for-profit organization.
  • I'm not expected to raise money for any organization as part of my funding agreement or job description.

Last revised September 4, 2016.