Leading academics in philosophy are demanding that academic journals mandate conflict-of-interest disclosures, citing a rapid influx of industry funding that threatens research integrity. The initiative stems from an open letter co-organized by philosophers Craig Callender of the University of California, San Diego, and Cailin O’Connor of the University of California, Irvine, which has already garnered over 200 signatories, including prominent scholars from Harvard, Cambridge, and New York University. Historically insulated from corporate influence, philosophy is now experiencing unprecedented demand for its expertise, particularly from frontier artificial intelligence companies. Tech firms are hiring philosophers at premium salaries to shape ethical frameworks, develop safety protocols, and draft operational guidelines for large language models. Beyond direct employment, a growing ecosystem of consulting contracts, corporate fellowships, and research grants is bridging academia and industry. While these partnerships provide researchers with proprietary data and pathways to real-world policy impact, they also raise concerns about financial bias and agenda manipulation. Petition organizers warn that industry funding could subtly steer philosophical inquiry toward commercially favorable topics. Critics note that corporate sponsors often fund research aligning with their product roadmaps, potentially distracting from broader societal risks. Some academics argue that the current surge in AI funding is already prioritizing speculative questions about machine consciousness over immediate concerns regarding misinformation, labor displacement, and algorithmic accountability. The organizers stress that disclosure alone does not imply misconduct but is essential to maintain transparency and public trust in an era of tight academic funding and competitive job markets. The proposed framework requires journals to implement standardized disclosure checklists covering industry funding, employment, consulting arrangements, personal investments, and professional relationships. Journals would be urged to publish these disclosures alongside new articles, apply them retroactively to existing publications, and establish enforcement protocols for noncompliance, including corrections or retractions. Advocates emphasize that transparency is a normative upgrade rather than a punitive measure, designed to align philosophy with established standards in medicine, political science, and the natural sciences. Implementation faces logistical and cultural hurdles. The tradition of triple-blind peer review, which anonymizes authors, reviewers, and editors, may complicate public disclosure requirements. Additionally, scholars suggest that transparency policies should eventually extend to academic conferences, professional societies, and private philanthropy, which can exert similar influence. Despite these challenges, organizers frame the push as a necessary evolution for the discipline. As industry engagement with philosophy deepens, proponents argue that formalizing transparency norms will safeguard academic rigor and ensure that philosophical inquiry remains independent, accountable, and responsive to public interest.