2 ms·

I don't entirely agree with your arguments that anonymity would be a good thing. Or even that it's sad that we can't have it. Although I do agree that it's help

I don't entirely agree with your arguments that anonymity would be a good thing. Or even that it's sad that we can't have it. Although I do agree that it's helpful in some situations. You say anonymity would prevent people pursuing science purely for fame. However first of all, science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in. And secondly, wanting to be recognised by your peers is not in and of itself bad, if it causes someone to pursue science then it might even be considered admirable. I think discrimination against authors is a lot more worrying, but the situation is better than it once was since it is now no longer possible to prevent someone from publishing their work. If nobody would read it if they knew who the author was, or if it's conclusion is so outrageous that it might damage the author's reputation, it's also possible to use a pseudonym. I vehemently disagree that it's a sad reality that we can't have full anonymity. A scientific process that is completely anonymous is either unnecessary or if it's necessary then that would be very very sad.

dalke 11y ago
"science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in" There's fame, like Einstein had, and there's fame like how everyone in your specific field knows who you are. For a comparison, there's "president of the United States" but there's also "Mayor of Albuquerque". The former is very hard to get. The latter, more common, and more achievable. Here's an example of how anonymity would hurt. A lot of pharmaceutical research is done in industry. While some of the research is kept proprietary, especially early on, other parts are published. It's a lot of work to publish. It may include talking with company lawyers so that confidential information isn't revealed. Why might someone go through this extra effort? One factor, of course, is the altruistic goal of advancing science. Another factor is the more egocentric desire to finally be able to tell others - who are often friends - the cool things you've been working on. A third is the knowledge that layoffs come, and a paper is a form of advertisement for future employment. The latter two disappear if all publications were anonymous.

dalke 11y ago

"science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in" There's fame, like Einstein had, and there's fame like how everyone in your specific field knows who you are. For a comparison, there's "president of the United States" but there's also "Mayor of Albuquerque". The former is very hard to get. The latter, more common, and more achievable. Here's an example of how anonymity would hurt. A lot of pharmaceutical research is done in industry. While some of the research is kept proprietary, especially early on, other parts are published. It's a lot of work to publish. It may include talking with company lawyers so that confidential information isn't revealed. Why might someone go through this extra effort? One factor, of course, is the altruistic goal of advancing science. Another factor is the more egocentric desire to finally be able to tell others - who are often friends - the cool things you've been working on. A third is the knowledge that layoffs come, and a paper is a form of advertisement for future employment. The latter two disappear if all publications were anonymous.