Should you be able to publish academic research under a pseudonym?

washingtonpost.com

12 points·ylem··2 comments

I found this to be an interesting article and I'm left with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it may be that the article that they published was lacking in scientific merit--however, if it had passed peer review and was to be published--to yank it because of the names of the people involved seems wrong. If there was a problem with the research, it seems like it should have been caught at the editorial or the review stage. Otherwise, it seems like it should have been published and if people found errors with it, then a comment could be made...

So, ignoring this particular scientific case, I'd be curious about what other people think--should publishing be double blind? In the past, I would have argued that it shouldn't...

First thought: yes, absolutely. The research should stand on its own.

Second thought: Hiding authorship potentially hides conflicts of interest.

Third thought: Publishing authorship does not reveal all conflicts of interest anyway.

Fourth thought: A paper that is explicitly pseudonymous will likely draw more attention and scrutiny. It's quite a step to take, for an academic - the whole point of writing papers is the benefit to one's reputation and career. Of course, one always has the option of claiming credit later...

Verdict: first impression was correct. You should be allowed to publish under whatever damn name you please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com