Fiduciary Governance Failures and Conflicts of Interest at PhilPapers: Why PhilPapers Must Act Now to Ensure Accountability and Fairness

In this essay, I critically examine fiduciary governance failures and conflicts of interest at PhilPapers, focusing particularly on the dual governance and editorial roles held by Professors David Chalmers and David Bourget. Drawing upon fiduciary theory, epistemic justice principles, and my prior scholarship, I argue that the concentration of both governance oversight and editorial decision-making within the same individuals creates structural conflicts that severely compromise transparency, impartiality, and accountability. These governance deficiencies not only undermine the legitimacy and scholarly integrity of PhilPapers but also contribute to epistemic injustice by diminishing scholars’ epistemic autonomy and trust globally. To address these issues, I propose immediate reforms including clear structural separation of fiduciary and editorial roles, establishment of an independent oversight board, rigorous transparency and accountability measures, and meaningful mechanisms for stakeholder responsiveness. The implementation of these reforms is essential, not only for restoring integrity at PhilPapers but also as a globally significant precedent for similar scholarly platforms and epistemic gatekeepers.