Personally, I don't expect that any wrong-doing on JSTOR's part will come out of this, so while it makes sense to list possible biases in the report, I'm more interested in MIT's and the prosector's actions.
If Abelson has ties to JSTOR and/or JSTOR involved personnel, his should disclose these as part of his reporting.
I was initially pleased with his choice, then subsequently surprised to learn of these ostensible ties in a sentence or two within some reporting or commentary that I don't have at hand, at the moment.
(So... if such ties don't exist, I am fully open to being corrected on this point. But, my recollection is fairly strong, if not specific -- in part due to the reinforcing nature of my surprise.)
P.S. I'll have a look for that bit of reporting that caught my attention, when I have a chance...
theodp continues " MIT's Wolpert, who was recently named to an advisory board for JSTOR parent Ithaka, also chairs the Management Board of the MIT Press, where her reports from 2008-2010 included JSTOR Managing Director Laura Brown and MIT's Hal Abelson, adding another twist to Abelson's analysis of MIT's involvement in the Swartz tragedy."
