Anonymous publication is in all probability impractical, but the concept also has serious flaws. Identifying authorship is important not only to give credit (o

Anonymous publication is in all probability impractical, but the concept also has serious flaws. Identifying authorship is important not only to give credit (or blame) where it's due, but also for historical reasons, to know how research developed among particular threads in a given disciplines. Naming authors is necessary to verify results, e.g., when authors admit to faking results (not a rarity), other articles by those authors are suspect as they should be. Publishing anonymously makes it hard or even impossible to know the legitimacy of reports especially as time since publication gets longer. While anonymous publication is highly unlikely to happen, IMO there are a few things that would materially improve the process. I think peer review and perhaps editing itself should be done anonymously. That way much of the "politics" is eliminated because anonymous review would have to accept/reject a manuscript only on its merit. In line with principles of full disclosure, an accepted paper would be published under its authors' names. It might also help to reduce political pressures associated with publishing. One change to consider is encouraging reports of research findings or results, but discouraging premature "conclusions", i.e., when effectively authors' speculations. In many fields data is lacking or inadequate to support conclusions, it's hard to say what data mean until there's enough such that clear patterns emerge. Constraining the urge to be the first to reach a conclusion could reduce unnecessary competitiveness in research communities. Contributing to the community is important in science, but contribution has a value that needs to be recognized or rewarded if we are to see it continue. Publishing a scientific report is an accomplishment to be proud of, certainly not selfish to enjoy being known for having done something worthy.