Yes, I understand where you come from: publishing should not be a game to create a high personal and/or institutional profile, and it should not be done 'among friends'. Both these issues have been raised countless times and not without [at least perceived] justification. Just think of the merciless fight between academics/researchers and/or their institutions to achieve high scoring publications in order to create reputation and to secure future funding. Not everybody plays fair.

Having said that, I can't see even semi anonymous papers [i.e. known to the publisher but anonymous in print] taking off. There is the question of responsibility for the article content. We need to know [for example] who was behind the just think of the MMR discussion a few years ago or the case of Joachim Boldt. When I publish [regardless whether it's as first or any other author], I carry full responsibility for the paper's content.

Also, research is not a single-person business. It needs teams, often recruited across a variety of universities, even countries. Knowing who works in which area is essential to form these teams and we learn about each others' work through our publications.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment underlying your question, but cannot see it work.

Interesting question Ernesto - and a good spin - but I can't see it ever taking off. Personally, I like the idea of 'let's reveal who the authors are' once an article has become established and recognised through multiple citation. That said, I'm an experienced author who is not reliant on IF, h-index, RG score etc. More novice authors, and sometimes not so novice, are more likely to 'demand' early impact - as a means to keep up with institutional requirements I.e. two-publications per year - or through establishing an early career platform

With a wink - the problem of plagiarism would disappear. You could never tell, who published what first.

Devang and Michael,

I suspect that you both see some appeal in what Ernesto proposes - and that is a good thing academically. We should always be looking to propose and adopt new forms of 'putting our stuff out there'. It seems quite altruistic to put forward ethical proposals such as anonymous articles etc. I'm quite sure that platforms like this will evolve - but they will be competing against the far more currently influential commercial publishing houses

@Dean, there might be situations where people want to publish anonymously to help without being praised, or to disguise their identity, because they intend to do harm.

Both intentions are possible, but in today's academia my impression (maybe biased) is that anonymous articles are taken with some care. Or, @Ernesto, how would you react to anonymous posts on your thread here (that might convey misleading, biased or just erroneous information)? If all publications were anonymous - and that's part of the original question -, which criteria would people use to discriminate between suspicious and truthful publications?

BTW. Are there any studies about the relative number of anonymous academic publications?

Yes, I understand where you come from: publishing should not be a game to create a high personal and/or institutional profile, and it should not be done 'among friends'. Both these issues have been raised countless times and not without [at least perceived] justification. Just think of the merciless fight between academics/researchers and/or their institutions to achieve high scoring publications in order to create reputation and to secure future funding. Not everybody plays fair.

Having said that, I can't see even semi anonymous papers [i.e. known to the publisher but anonymous in print] taking off. There is the question of responsibility for the article content. We need to know [for example] who was behind the just think of the MMR discussion a few years ago or the case of Joachim Boldt. When I publish [regardless whether it's as first or any other author], I carry full responsibility for the paper's content.

Also, research is not a single-person business. It needs teams, often recruited across a variety of universities, even countries. Knowing who works in which area is essential to form these teams and we learn about each others' work through our publications.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment underlying your question, but cannot see it work.

That's an original idea... but would you be happy as an author if nobody would know what you have published? How would you prove what you have published if you wish to apply for national or international research grants or if you wish to find a job in another university? Also, getting 30 citations is not easy in several research areas. Moreover, in some research and/or geographical areas only a few people are conducting certain type of research, so, it is not so hard to guess who are the authors especially if they have presented similar work at conferences.

Dean, you are pointing to the root of the problem, which is that IF, amount of papers per year, among many other, are institutional requirements, and therefore many times we must play games that we don’t want to play.

Michael Brückner, I don’t think that the plagiarism problem would disappear, in fact, a system where nobody knows who is publishing what, would facilitate the life for those who like to steal ideas. On the other hand, the idea would be to publish anonymously, but that doesn’t mean that editors, institutions and third parties could not learn who publish what and when.

Regarding if I would like to receive anonymous posts on my thread, I don’t care… I don’t know any of the ones that have answered so far, and it doesn’t make a difference if I can see your name and face, or if I can’t. What I appreciate is the ideas you are discussing, and the chance to interact with people from many different fields, nations, and institutions. Regarding your question, which criteria would people use to discriminate between suspicious and truthful publications? That is part of the original question… Well-known authors are more cited than others, because their reputations give them a plus. That doesn’t mean that other doesn’t make science as good as the well known, or even better, and the reputations doesn’t warranties honesty.

Jana, I couldn’t agree more regarding the great chance that is the feedback at conferences. The idea is not that science would become anonymous, only the publications in peer reviewed journals. In a conference you may interact with many others, but even in the conferences with tens of thousands of attendants, a poster may be discussed with 10-30 other guys in your field. By the time it is published, maybe just a couple of them would remember precisely who was the author of the poster. The problems to plagiarism, dishonesty, and retractions would not be a problem if the editors do their jobs with the rigor that is required.

Michael Pfeil, I know that the idea seem to be idealistic, but there is no easy answer to complex questions. I understand how much effort is related to the collaborations between institutions, and how hard is to build up a name in a field, but the idea is not to change the complete system, is related to the way the readers are biased by the name of the authors in a paper. Few years ago I did publish a review with three coworkers, two of them quite big names in my field, and the other one a guy who was growing fast (nowadays he has a big name in my field). Eighteen months after it was published, I learned that the article was cited about 15 times and I was very happy. At the same time, two of the biggest gurus in my field published a similar review… they had 100 citations in the same time. Their review wasn’t better, in fact we were talking about similar aspects but our scope was broader. What would be the destiny of our papers regarding citations, if nobody knew who published what? Our paper has done well, more than 50 citations in few years… compared to thousands for the gurus!

Tia, the happiness of an author regarding people knowing what he/she has published is related to the ego, no the quality of science. I would be happy if Science or Nature published my paper, even if my name is not in the paper, because I achieve to put my science under the bigger spot light that science has. I put a limit of 30 citations just as an example, every field could put their own limits… and yes, it is not easy to publish something with many citations, but that is the aim of any publisher. Regarding the “anonymity” of authors working in small fields, or well known for performing specific type of technics, or because they attend the same conferences, would exist if the articles are anonymous or not. When Newton solved in few hours a challenge that none of their peers were capable to solve in 12 months, he published the solution anonymously. Johann Bernoulli stated when he read the solution “Tanquam ex ungue leonem”, or we recognize the lion by his claw.

Dear all,

Anonymous - well, what I tell my students, that they should not depend on anonymous journals - but in some cases there might be a need - but not all of the journals need to be anonymous.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Wow - Ernesto, if I could give you two votes I would. That's a very comprehensive response. Most contributors will be happy with the considered feedback.

It seems to boil down to the 'honesty versus dishonesty' motivation for anonymous publications. As an editor, or an editorial board member, where an anonymous policy were to be adopted or the process accepted, I would be inclined to put in place a 'very robust' checklist outlining strict requirements and tight signed rationales and justifications for any author/s proposing anonymity. They would have to 'heavily' tick the altruistic 'honesty box'!! Any deviation from this should offer a warning of public exposure.

Dear Ernesto: I am afraid it is too late for me to join this paradoxical discussion in full rights but stiil...

I think that authorless publications if they were ever pissible (the biggest IF I've ever met) would be very traumatic for normal mentality and normal (moreover, quite useful) vanity of scientists while not helping to stop the grievous tendency of substituting not always clean market competiton and commercial advertising for healthy "sportsmanlike" stimuli prompting me or you or any researcher worth his/her salt not only to look for some new knowlege but to wish to be the very first who has found it - and to make all who should know notice this small or great victory of mine, or of yours, or of your colleague.

To begin with, I'd propose a mutual Declaration of all Leading Scientific Institutions of the World banning assessment of a study worth and of researchers' success based on the IFs of journals in which they published their papers. Phantastic? I know, I know...

Regards

Boris

PS. Besides, I show that I am responsible for the honesty of my work just by not hiding my authorsip.

Henk, I don’t think that this idea would catch 100 years ago, when science was performed by small groups, if not by a single person. It is in the human nature the need for recognition of what we do. I am suggesting this idea, because I think that is important to realize how many different aspects are involved in “measuring” the activity of scientists, and how this metrics create distortions in the way we do things. I also don’t believe that we are stuck in this system… we can always improve any system!

Dean, thanks for the votes! ☺

You nailed it with the very robust checklist! That is precisely what is needed nowadays when everybody wants to be coauthor of a paper, and everybody wants to be the first author or the correspondent author.

Boris, I think that your explanation about why it would not work is accurate. At the end of the day, science is a human activity that requires money to move forward, and the Institutions need to convince the politicians that the money in science worth the effort, because it will give back more money, one way or another. You are also right, when stating that by signing your work you are responsible of it. But I am not suggesting of hiding the responsibility of the authors, I am suggesting, not making public in order to avoid biases in how the scientific community receive an idea, just because is proposed by a big guru, or by a young and unknown scientist.

Dear Ernesto:

(1)I think that the community (or rather its members) that receives or rejects an idea not according to its novelty, good factual foundation, importance etc but just because it is proposed by a big guru, or by a young and unknown scientist is hardly worth to be called a scientific community (respectively, a scientist).

(2) I understand that it is the 21th - not the 19th century, I know that it is a competitive world but there should be a difference between competition in manufacturing and selling commodities or in services and that in the science. I feel that we've almost lost the distinction, and I think that focusing on " IF of the journal to publish a paper, h-index, i10-index, RG Score and many other metrics" is if not fully responsible for, still greatly contributing to it.

(3) As for the order of authors....

Who is more important: the conductor of an orсhestra, the 1st violinist or a goboist? A symphony could not be performed perfectly minus any one of them, but you remember that it was conducted by Arturo Toscanini and never ask the names of musicians. Will your colleagues in research also be satisfied by their salary and care only about why Dr.A is paid more than Dr.B? Mine surely will not.

Alas, each team has to make this difficult decision according to its own ethical code and depending on circumstances.

(4) So now I doubt if it would be appropriate to upgrade your personal metrics (specifically, the RG score) by upvoting some of your statements in this particular discussion? Let me risk it!

Wow, this sounds like a "Hide and Seek" approach to publishing - A kind of a game and someone said correctly publishing is not a game, it is about integrity, sincerity and reputation that the author(s) are willing openly to stand by. Put simply, hiding author's details would not work - it is unnecessary and totally against the spirit of recognition that any form of publishing is built upon. Anybody who publishes anything have to be able to stand by what they have published and they can rise or fall depending upon the correctness or incorrectness of their work.

Yes, there are many and varied problems experienced by young and old researchers in publishing their work. But you don't solve the problem by hiding away from it. Most of the problems are largely centred around the review/editorial process and the integrity of the journal/publisher.

The problem with the review process has been compounded by the massive increase in the number of journals in some areas which in time has reduced the pool of good quality reviewers. Coupled with this is the desperate measures taken by some journals in selecting reviewers without doing due diligence. Even worse is done by some journals in selecting members of their editorial board who largely do nothing and should not even be there.

Just because someone has published several journal papers in an area does not necessarily mean that he or she is qualified to be a good reviewer. As we all know, there are many people out there who amass publications through association/negotiation without actually knowing or contributing much to the published work. Imagine if a journal picks someone like this to review you work. It would most likely result in a poor review process.

We can no longer ignore the fact that there are special skills required and involved in reviewing research work and, contrary to past assumption, not everyone is imbued in or trained in these skills. Yet everyone think they can be a reviewer and accept invitations without seriously and honestly considering whether they have the ability to do the task required effectively and proficiently. The problem is even more compounded when an editor, who has limited experience in editing and/or not a broad enough knowledge/expertise in the areas covered by the journal, makes a decision blindly on review reports even when they have glaringly obvious errors or evidence of inadequate judgement by the reviewer.

I can go on and on. But these are only some of the issues that are causing some of the dissatisfaction being expressed by many about current journal publication processes. BUT rather than to start HIDING AUTHOR'S IDENTITY in the hope that this will fix the problems, we need to take the problem HEAD ON by complaining to the journals about the issues and speaking out in academic and public forums about the problem. If we put the pressure on collectively, I am sure we can make the journals notice and respond by changing some of their current inadequate practices.

Dear Samuel

Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate the issues you are bringing to the discussion. First of all, I know that publishing under anonymous bases is not an idea that anyone will consider seriously, but is an exercise to stress some of the many problems related to the way publishing and evaluating the work of scientists in different countries.

You are talking about one of the main problems related to the quality of publications, which is the peer-review process. I have been a reviewer for several years, and I may reject 2/3 of the invitations, because the editor is inviting me to review manuscripts that are far from been related to my expertise. I also have done some editorial work for a journal, and it is very disappointing that when you invite an expert (sometimes few experts in a row) in the field of the manuscript that has to be reviewed, and all of them decline the invitation because they are very busy writing grants, leading students and postdocs and so on… and then is necessary to invite someone else that may not have the experience to give a good review.

I think that these kind of discussions are very useful, in fact, someone else started a discussion about the peer-review process in other thread (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_current_peer_review_system_adequate_to_evaluate_the_quality_of_ones_research_and_publications)

Dear Samuel, I'd like not only to upvote your answer but to sign under each sentence bar the last one ("If we put the pressure on collectively, I am sure we can make the journals notice and respond by changing some of their current inadequate practices") that is really too optimistic. To direct the chaotic movement of so-called scientific community as to put a сollective pressure on something would be a miracle like levitation.

My own experience makes me add two more drawbacks of a typical process:

(1) The lack of impartiality too often associated with a reviewer's having done some research in the same field and so being....competent. What to do with this paradox I do not know, but I feel that neither do some Editors, nor even care about it. Recently I received an invitation to review just such an article and asked the handling Editor whether he would think me an adequate reviewer taking into account a possibility of some bias in my assessment of the work (very low indeed as based on the Abstract). Having got no response. I wrote about it again but to no avail. At last the invitation has been cancelled because of my.... procrastination. So my noble position was not even noticed, alas. Next time I'll not be that scrupulous.

(2) The second typical reviewers' sin is just the procrastination. They are too busy or too lazy to remember about authors' worries. As a rule, the Journals are much more patient than in the above case of mine and wait - why would not they indeed wait for a work unpaid for!? I think that if reviewers were offered some payment for a review returned to a certain day which payment would decrease stepwise for each day of delay, this problem would be solved.

(3) When one of 2 reviews is highly commendable while the 2nd one is highly disaproving, what is a typical decision of a typical Editor? Make your guess. Moreover, his position is easy to understand as nobody will know about his having killed a probably good work but he is afraid to be criticized or even punished for publishing something that somebody does not aprove.

As to the Ernesto's idea of anonymity, I have already expressed my doubts.

Dear Ernesto, so you "knew that publishing under anonymous bases is not an idea that anyone will consider seriously, but is an exercise to stress some of the many problems related to the way publishing and evaluating the work of scientists in different countries." and so it was not only I who fell for this trap and began to argue against that bait of yours in serious. Still the really important problems you wanted to be discussed are being discussed too. Good for you!

Dear Boris, I would not consider the exercise as a trap! I seriously believe that the whole system of publication has so many problems, and one of the main problems is that publishers and readers are biased by the NAME of the authors. If a BIG NAME is in the paper, it will be cited, or considered, or whatever. If the name is not so big, or unknown, well, we already discuss what happens. I would not mind if the publications were anonymous, because as Dean proposed, there would be a very robust checklist in order to publish something. Also, the proposal of anonymous publishing has nothing to do with the ethics of the authors, because I would go back to the very robust checklist.

The process of publication is called peer-reviewed, and when the reviewers know the names of the authors, specially when they are in the same especiality of a certain field, the names of the authors become something important, and therefore the peer assumption disappears. Few years ago I was talking with someone that I knew very well at the moment, someone that I considered someone that should be respected, and he was upset because a grant or a paper was rejected, and he said that there was no one that could make a fair evaluation. I said to him, that our peers may not be involved so deeply in the subject, but that we may improve the project out of the comments. His answer was, those are no peers of us… That is not an uncommon thought in science, because the ego of people is a huge trap… that is a real trap.

I see your point, dear Ernesto, but still I uderstand the position of the "someone"too. Sometimes a very low competence of your reviewer is so blatant that to call him/her your peer would be hypocrisy from your part.

Some time ago you could follow another ResGate tread - just about the so-called double blind reviewing process. In fact, however, more often that not only one eye is blind: the author's. A competent reviewer usually can guess the author's identity (especially if the latter refers to his earlier works) and moreover, some journals do not hide that identity from their reviewers. Meantime these reviewers' anonymity is always strictly kept, and sometimes you do not know even the name of your handling Editor. Well, I am sure that it is a very bad practice. If I am a reviewer of a paper and my criticism is impartial why should I be afraid of author's knowing my name? When I know his, I usually send my review to him myself. Only dishonest reviewer would shy disclosure of his identity, and this onesided blindness of the process is nurturing just such dishonesty.

Agreed Boris - the review/author relationship can be a 'mixed bag'. Often - 'who is who' is known and, I agree, if we are all professional and responsible - what's the harm in knowing 'who is who'.

So, instead of changing to an anonymous publication, we should change to a transparent way of peer review? I like the idea!

Ernesto - your point has been argued several times before on RG - but the results tend to end up the same - 'nice idea, but on-one is going for it.' - or the variations for imposing a degree of transparent review processes are 'too wide and variable.'

Dear Ernesto, double transparency instead of a fiction of double blindness is just what I insisted on in the tread I mentioned above, that discussion being perhaps one of "several times" Dean keeps in mind. You may be surprised but this idea was supported by virtually nobody. It seems that very few people believe that a reviewer can be impartial and honest and not afraid of repercussions. If you take into consideration that many of those disputants were experienced reviewers or even Editors, this position was quite remarkable indeed.

O tempora, o mores!

I think that each research work is supervised by a boss and the affiliation belonging to it. So when a paper is submitted to a journal for publication, it signifies: sharing ideas and results with the scientific community for further assessment and improvement; it means also, that it has been controlled by the chief of the research team before submission, so are reviewers qualified to evaluate the research policy of this laboratory? I do think no. Are they capable to have full idea of the heavy work behind a paper of few pages? I do think no. So the acceptance or not of the publication is entirely belonging to the journal policies. Publications are essential for science sharing, and reviewers are simply sympathetic and benevolent people that support good science information sharing; and they do not have any qualification for research work or laboratory assessment. So I think that publication must be automatic ‘after review’ when it is submitted from official or/and national institution. And I approve the idea no blinding of authors, affiliation, and reviewers.

Woooow - the discussion on this issue has moved into the peer-review and editing process... since I last shared two lines of opinion about anonymous authorship... and there are some very interesting comments... and I do agree with most of them, especially, that due to being busy, some reviewers might come to a decision to reject a paper - leaving the work unpublished! which is a shame.

Hope the process can be adjusted.! but how? any ideas.

Regards

Theodora Issa

Theodora, the anonymous publication is just a nice idea to discuss different aspects related to the different bias that publishers, reviewers and readers have in relation to well known and unknown authors... And in fact, little has been discussed regarding the bias of readers leaded or missleaded by the name of the authors.

From some degree it can avoid the bias of manuscript selection, but the authors can directly write to tell the editors which papers are theirs and ask for preferiential treatment.

Good point, Dunlian, but the idea is not to hide the authorship from the editors, but from the reviewers and potential readers. The preferential treatment will always exist, I am sure about that.

The preferential treatment will always exist, - as wellI as its antipode - I am sure about that (I' m afraid it is easy to guess which kind I know more about).

Patents, copyrights and named publications are symbolic of a materialistic and objective society where ego is paramount, ignoring all the countless predecessors who have toiled to reach the current level, 'giants upon whose shoulders the current author stands'.

This is only a temporary phase of selfish existence which will soon evolve into the more mature and unselfish "open source" sooner or later. because knowledge/wisdom belongs to all.

An important Mathematics book prescribed by the New York State Education Department acknowledges the debt to the ancient anonymous authors in the following words:

" The Western world owes a great deal to India for a simple invention. It was developed by an unknown Indian more than 1500 years ago. Without most of the great discoveries and inventions (including computers) of western civilization would never have come about. This invention was the decimal system of numerals - nine digits and a zero. The science and technology of today (including the computers) could not have developed if we had only the Roman system of numerals. That system is too clumsy to be used as a scientific too. Today we take the decimal system for granted. We don't think about how brilliant the man who invented zero must have been. Yet without zero we could not assign a place value to the digits. That ancient mathematician, whoever, he was, deserves much honor."

This case might be interesting for this thread.

The editors and publisher of a US climate journal asked COPE about publishing content anonymously following the recent “gag orders” placed on the US Environmental Protection Agency. The editors wanted to promote actively a new policy, while the publisher was encouraging evaluation of each situation if/when anonymity was requested. How should the journal proceed?

https://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2017/mar/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-march-2017-vol-5-issue-3#story-2716