[oldalum]

The original and revised versions of the preprint state:

"We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication." 

And the whistleblower apparently does not allege the latter statement is incorrect, although it leaves open the possibility that the funder(s) played a role in the preparation and review of the manuscript. The phrasing "the decision to prepare and submit" is odd; it is notable that it is not "nor in the preparation and submission of the manuscript for publication."

Even if funders in fact just write a check and play no role whatsoever in the study or the paper, funding sources that have an interest in how the results come out should be disclosed because they represent a potential source of future funding that can influence the researchers on the present study even without direct communication.

[oldalum]

The original and revised versions of the preprint state:

"We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication." 

And the whistleblower apparently does not allege the latter statement is incorrect, although it leaves open the possibility that the funder(s) played a role in the preparation and review of the manuscript. The phrasing "the decision to prepare and submit" is odd; it is notable that it is not "nor in the preparation and submission of the manuscript for publication."

Even if funders in fact just write a check and play no role whatsoever in the study or the paper, funding sources that have an interest in how the results come out should be disclosed because they represent a potential source of future funding that can influence the researchers on the present study even without direct communication.