15 ms·

Pseudonyms to protect authors of controversial articles

127 points by new_guy 8y ago

scentoni 8y ago
"But right now in current conditions something like this is needed." This just seems like a scheme for closeted nazis to publish eugenics articles without criticism. That's never needed, and particularly not right now.
- krapp 8y ago
  To be fair, it's entirely possible to criticize an anonymous article.
- adammichaelc 8y ago
  Your reaction is actually a perfect example of the reason this is needed right now. And you didn’t do it ironically (AFAICT). “Oh they need true freedom of speech? They are probably Nazi’s”
- joemi 8y ago
  Your comment actually is a perfect example of why this anonymity is needed. I read the article, I thought it was an interesting idea. On the other hand, you (presumably) read the article, came to the conclusion that Nazis must be behind it, and have now voiced your concern that it's a Nazi scheme publicly on the internet for everyone to see. Some people prefer not to have such accusations thrown at them for merely suggesting innocuous not-politically-motivated things.
- vokep 8y ago
  What harm do such articles being put out do? If the general population can't think for themselves to individually dismiss such articles, and instead needs someone to do it for them for protection from their own gullibility...I don't think I want to be part of that population.
  - fwip 8y ago
    Ah, you read every paper that you hear mentioned, to make sure it's accurate?
    - Sacho 8y ago
      No, but not reading a paper doesn't mean you have to trust it; you can simply default to a skeptical stance of "I am not sure of the quality of this paper, so I can't really trust its results". Given the amount of crap already put out, I think that's a reasonable stance. The common faults include: - paper is good quality, but results are inflated/misunderstood by reporter - paper examines correlation, misses (seemingly obvious) other explanations. This can get so bad that you get "wet streets cause rain" results. - paper uses statistics incorrectly or in a misleading manner(example: Data says A is true 8% of the time, false 2% of the time, unknown 90% of the time. Paper concludes that "A is only determined false 2% of the time, which is technically true, but misleading") - paper uses unexpected definitions - words in common parlance but redefined for its field, definition is localized(legal, cultural), etc. A prime example is rape statistics, where the legal status of rape is different between countries, and many papers examining rape rates also use their own definition. To go back to the original point - if someone is telling you certain people are inferior because of their genetic makeup, as proven by paper X, this can be wrong on all 4 counts I mentioned - the definition of "inferior" might not match mine, the statistics might be misleading, the correlation may be spurious(especially when generalizing such complex phenomenon!), or the reports might be wildly inflated. Why would you even begin to trust such a paper, before verifying it?
  - nl 8y ago
    Because sub-segments of the population isolate themselves, and then selectively use mainstream articles to reinforce their views to the point where they promote and act on violence. Take for example the incel communities, where they selectively quote parts of research articles to support their views, and use them to reinforce calls to violence which members of that community act on.
    - poptrex 8y ago
raincom 8y ago
Pseudonyms are good for joint contributions, position papers, summarizing/expanding the available criticisms, fundamentally new research. Anything else get you get dox'ed: too many references to a set of authors can lead in the direction of one of this set being the author. We are in a sad state where we can't even discuss ideas.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  My choice of internet handle (my real name) reflects my position on the topic. Anonymity has a place, but people need to become more comfortable with attaching their identities to their ideas. (and we need more protections or enforcement for the consequesnces so people can actually feel safer)
  - avani 8y ago
    Ostensibly this is what tenure is for.
    - raincom 8y ago
      1. Tenure alone does not get one soft benefits. Even these guys want power and money. So, they wanna become deans, then vice provost, provost, eventually President of some wealthy college. This soft power can get tenure jobs for one's girl friends. 2. Even if one gets a tenure, your students' won't get any jobs if you don't toe the line of the dominant themes in social sciences--identity politics, political correctness, knowledge/power, etc. 3. Intellectual honesty and integrity, core virtues of being an intellectual, is missing in the picture.
      - solveit 8y ago
        But it does mean that the worst that can happen to you is that you stop being invited to the cool parties. In particular, when all is said and done, you'll have a stable job.
      - raincom 8y ago
joemi 8y ago
Now if we can just get around to fixing why we need such anonymity in an academic journal in the first place... It's absurd that there's such danger in saying something that doesn't entirely align with either the left or the right (at least in the US). It feels quite a lot like McCarthyism to me (or what I imagine it was like at that time, since I'm not that old).
- yasp 8y ago
  Because liberalism is a religion and people that expose the flaws in the ideology are modern-day heretics. Fortunately heretics are no longer burned at the stake. Instead you just get fired, socially ostracized, your career ruined, etc.
  - joemi 8y ago
    It's more than that though. Liberalism is a religion, sure, but there's a right wing equivalent too that's just as fervent. (No, it's not Nazism, though that isn't to say that's not a threat too.) I think it's just the polarization of the parties. Both of the main sociopolitical parties in the US have become so vehemently polarized that they view each other as the greatest threat to the country. In turn, you're either entirely 100% with them, or your clearly someone from the other party and you're the enemy.
    - yasp 8y ago
      What is the right-wing ideological equivalent where its adherents would attempt to deplatform, smear, etc. someone for violating its dogma, and what is the dogma?
      - joemi 8y ago
        Put simply: Pretty much most of what Trump stands for. In a way, he's even the "religious leader".
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        "patriotism"
longerthoughts 8y ago
Who will contribute to this? Would institutions sign off on their staff spending time on controversial work that brings them no immediate recognition? Maybe this gets used as a staging area where institutions measure public response and take credit if it looks like it's to their advantage?
- ggggtez 8y ago
  I agree. The intention appears to be that if an Org funds a biased study, then the funded academic can secretly publish a counter point to themselves. That's the best case, and it means the academic published one paper that they thought was false. So, this is a paper that accepts liars, as long as they promise to tell the truth this time? The worst case is that the Org just cuts out the middle-man and writes the paper themselves and publishes the BS study in this journal too.
bengrunfeld 8y ago
This is a terrible idea. When factual writing becomes anonymous, truth goes out the window. Having articles and papers peer-reviewed also does not solve the greater issue of a lack of free speech. If it's inside academia, then it wouldn't be hard to figure out who the peers are, and if it's outside academia, then there's no way to trust the peers, since they could simply be anybody. The only solution is to strongly enforce the right of free speech and personal protection. Going underground just invites fascism.
gus_massa 8y ago
This won't fly because: * You can't put it in your resume. And that is importante because many academics need a minimal amount of publication each year. Perhaps someone with a tenure can have the luxury of a hidden article, but most of them have some graduate student or postdoc that is a coauthor and wants to increase the total count of papers by any mean. * If the article is controversial enough, the authors will be identified using a text analysis. Most papers reuse a lot of parts of the previous papers of the authors, so it is not so difficult. * Each controversial article will get the offended side (right/left/whatever) asking for an exemption of the anonymity and/xor deplataforming the journal.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  Text analysis is like a polygraph, it's not really conclusive in and of itself and it's not really grounds to convict someone. It might help point you in the right direction if you ask the right questions, which may help lead you to something more conclusive.
  - endominus 8y ago
    I don't think the standards of evidence demanded by those that authors of controversial articles fear are stringent enough that "equivalent to a polygraph" fails them.
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    I think that looking at the reference section will detect 99% of the time who is the author or at least reduce the possibilities to a small group. People usually have a lot of citations of their previous amazing papers and the papers of the advisors and papers of friendly groups. It's possible to avoid this, but there is a strong bias. (It's more evident if you remove the common citations that everyone in the are is using in all the papers.)
- gnicholas 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. It's possible that some people will publish anonymously here and then later, if their work is sufficiently accepted by a large enough chunk of academia/society, they would come out from the shadows and claim ownership. I agree that untenured academics need to publish papers they can put on their resume, but it's not a fatal flaw if most of the early articles are penned by tenured professors. I'm not an expert in text analysis, but I think that if someone is trying to obfuscate their authorship they could probably do so.
tomcam 8y ago
> Academics who are frightened to explore controversial topics, in case it provokes a backlash, will soon have a safer route to publish such work. Assuming any of this is happening in the US, it's an indictment of the whole system. This is what tenure is for. EDIT: Oops, avani beat me to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437414
jf- 8y ago
It’ll last about five minutes. The first issue will see the reviewers and editorial board subject to a hail of condemnation that will threaten or end their careers. Even if the authors are anonymous, everyone identifiable will be attacked for having the gall to give them a platform. All this does is invite people to shoot the messenger, and they will.
ggggtez 8y ago
What incentive other than your reputation is even available to ensure it's not just filled with junk science? We've seen in journals on social sciences, for example, that peer reviewers can be fooled relatively easily. By setting up the incentives like this, won't this just become a bastion of crackpots and frauds?
slivym 8y ago
I've got to say, I can't actually call to mind any instances of controversial peer-reviewed papers. I can point to the Bell Curve- that was controversial, but it was a also a book written by a conservative political operative that made specific governmental policy recommendations. That seems like an entirely different topic to me. Or for another example let's take Jordan Peterson, he's quite clearly written lots of academic papers. But are those controversial? Not really, he's widely regarded as a fine professor of psychology. But does that really wave a magic wand over his head and grant him immunity from being judged for the self-help books he publishes? I don't think anyone reasonable person would agree with that. Also, what protection does pseudonymous authorship afford him? He's literally making a career out of touring different countries giving speeches about the moral decay of western culture. Here's my question: Does this problem actually exist? Or is this misplaced fear about a different issue that actually does exist.
- slavik81 8y ago
  There was a recent article about an academic paper that was so controversial that it was erased after publication. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318
  - slivym 8y ago
    Sorry but you're going to have cite some real sources, not right wing propaganda. I mean, I read the entire article and I still for the life of me can't actually understand on what basis the academic paper was 'erased'. I assume that's because this 'article' is written by the person who is pushing an agenda rather than an actual reporter reporting on the facts of an incident. Frankly the whole thing reads as 'Those nasty people are idiots and dont want people hearing how amazing my work is because then everyone will know how stupid they are!'. I mean really, it's very difficult to actually get any factual information about what happened. It's kind of difficult for me to have sympathy if the only reports of this happening are far right blogs where the author themselves is reporting what happened.
    - slavik81 8y ago

127 points by new_guy 8y ago

"But right now in current conditions something like this is needed." This just seems like a scheme for closeted nazis to publish eugenics articles without criticism. That's never needed, and particularly not right now.

krapp 8y ago
To be fair, it's entirely possible to criticize an anonymous article.
adammichaelc 8y ago
Your reaction is actually a perfect example of the reason this is needed right now. And you didn’t do it ironically (AFAICT). “Oh they need true freedom of speech? They are probably Nazi’s”
joemi 8y ago
Your comment actually is a perfect example of why this anonymity is needed. I read the article, I thought it was an interesting idea. On the other hand, you (presumably) read the article, came to the conclusion that Nazis must be behind it, and have now voiced your concern that it's a Nazi scheme publicly on the internet for everyone to see. Some people prefer not to have such accusations thrown at them for merely suggesting innocuous not-politically-motivated things.
vokep 8y ago
What harm do such articles being put out do? If the general population can't think for themselves to individually dismiss such articles, and instead needs someone to do it for them for protection from their own gullibility...I don't think I want to be part of that population.
- fwip 8y ago
  Ah, you read every paper that you hear mentioned, to make sure it's accurate?
  - Sacho 8y ago
    No, but not reading a paper doesn't mean you have to trust it; you can simply default to a skeptical stance of "I am not sure of the quality of this paper, so I can't really trust its results". Given the amount of crap already put out, I think that's a reasonable stance. The common faults include: - paper is good quality, but results are inflated/misunderstood by reporter - paper examines correlation, misses (seemingly obvious) other explanations. This can get so bad that you get "wet streets cause rain" results. - paper uses statistics incorrectly or in a misleading manner(example: Data says A is true 8% of the time, false 2% of the time, unknown 90% of the time. Paper concludes that "A is only determined false 2% of the time, which is technically true, but misleading") - paper uses unexpected definitions - words in common parlance but redefined for its field, definition is localized(legal, cultural), etc. A prime example is rape statistics, where the legal status of rape is different between countries, and many papers examining rape rates also use their own definition. To go back to the original point - if someone is telling you certain people are inferior because of their genetic makeup, as proven by paper X, this can be wrong on all 4 counts I mentioned - the definition of "inferior" might not match mine, the statistics might be misleading, the correlation may be spurious(especially when generalizing such complex phenomenon!), or the reports might be wildly inflated. Why would you even begin to trust such a paper, before verifying it?
- nl 8y ago
  Because sub-segments of the population isolate themselves, and then selectively use mainstream articles to reinforce their views to the point where they promote and act on violence. Take for example the incel communities, where they selectively quote parts of research articles to support their views, and use them to reinforce calls to violence which members of that community act on.
  - poptrex 8y ago

raincom 8y ago

Pseudonyms are good for joint contributions, position papers, summarizing/expanding the available criticisms, fundamentally new research. Anything else get you get dox'ed: too many references to a set of authors can lead in the direction of one of this set being the author. We are in a sad state where we can't even discuss ideas.

colechristensen 8y ago
My choice of internet handle (my real name) reflects my position on the topic. Anonymity has a place, but people need to become more comfortable with attaching their identities to their ideas. (and we need more protections or enforcement for the consequesnces so people can actually feel safer)
- avani 8y ago
  Ostensibly this is what tenure is for.
  - raincom 8y ago
    1. Tenure alone does not get one soft benefits. Even these guys want power and money. So, they wanna become deans, then vice provost, provost, eventually President of some wealthy college. This soft power can get tenure jobs for one's girl friends. 2. Even if one gets a tenure, your students' won't get any jobs if you don't toe the line of the dominant themes in social sciences--identity politics, political correctness, knowledge/power, etc. 3. Intellectual honesty and integrity, core virtues of being an intellectual, is missing in the picture.
    - solveit 8y ago
      But it does mean that the worst that can happen to you is that you stop being invited to the cool parties. In particular, when all is said and done, you'll have a stable job.
    - raincom 8y ago

joemi 8y ago

Now if we can just get around to fixing why we need such anonymity in an academic journal in the first place... It's absurd that there's such danger in saying something that doesn't entirely align with either the left or the right (at least in the US). It feels quite a lot like McCarthyism to me (or what I imagine it was like at that time, since I'm not that old).

yasp 8y ago
Because liberalism is a religion and people that expose the flaws in the ideology are modern-day heretics. Fortunately heretics are no longer burned at the stake. Instead you just get fired, socially ostracized, your career ruined, etc.
- joemi 8y ago
  It's more than that though. Liberalism is a religion, sure, but there's a right wing equivalent too that's just as fervent. (No, it's not Nazism, though that isn't to say that's not a threat too.) I think it's just the polarization of the parties. Both of the main sociopolitical parties in the US have become so vehemently polarized that they view each other as the greatest threat to the country. In turn, you're either entirely 100% with them, or your clearly someone from the other party and you're the enemy.
  - yasp 8y ago
    What is the right-wing ideological equivalent where its adherents would attempt to deplatform, smear, etc. someone for violating its dogma, and what is the dogma?
    - joemi 8y ago
      Put simply: Pretty much most of what Trump stands for. In a way, he's even the "religious leader".
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      "patriotism"

longerthoughts 8y ago

Who will contribute to this? Would institutions sign off on their staff spending time on controversial work that brings them no immediate recognition? Maybe this gets used as a staging area where institutions measure public response and take credit if it looks like it's to their advantage?

ggggtez 8y ago
I agree. The intention appears to be that if an Org funds a biased study, then the funded academic can secretly publish a counter point to themselves. That's the best case, and it means the academic published one paper that they thought was false. So, this is a paper that accepts liars, as long as they promise to tell the truth this time? The worst case is that the Org just cuts out the middle-man and writes the paper themselves and publishes the BS study in this journal too.

bengrunfeld 8y ago

This is a terrible idea. When factual writing becomes anonymous, truth goes out the window. Having articles and papers peer-reviewed also does not solve the greater issue of a lack of free speech. If it's inside academia, then it wouldn't be hard to figure out who the peers are, and if it's outside academia, then there's no way to trust the peers, since they could simply be anybody. The only solution is to strongly enforce the right of free speech and personal protection. Going underground just invites fascism.

gus_massa 8y ago

This won't fly because: * You can't put it in your resume. And that is importante because many academics need a minimal amount of publication each year. Perhaps someone with a tenure can have the luxury of a hidden article, but most of them have some graduate student or postdoc that is a coauthor and wants to increase the total count of papers by any mean. * If the article is controversial enough, the authors will be identified using a text analysis. Most papers reuse a lot of parts of the previous papers of the authors, so it is not so difficult. * Each controversial article will get the offended side (right/left/whatever) asking for an exemption of the anonymity and/xor deplataforming the journal.

anonytrary 8y ago
Text analysis is like a polygraph, it's not really conclusive in and of itself and it's not really grounds to convict someone. It might help point you in the right direction if you ask the right questions, which may help lead you to something more conclusive.
- endominus 8y ago
  I don't think the standards of evidence demanded by those that authors of controversial articles fear are stringent enough that "equivalent to a polygraph" fails them.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  I think that looking at the reference section will detect 99% of the time who is the author or at least reduce the possibilities to a small group. People usually have a lot of citations of their previous amazing papers and the papers of the advisors and papers of friendly groups. It's possible to avoid this, but there is a strong bias. (It's more evident if you remove the common citations that everyone in the are is using in all the papers.)
gnicholas 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree. It's possible that some people will publish anonymously here and then later, if their work is sufficiently accepted by a large enough chunk of academia/society, they would come out from the shadows and claim ownership. I agree that untenured academics need to publish papers they can put on their resume, but it's not a fatal flaw if most of the early articles are penned by tenured professors. I'm not an expert in text analysis, but I think that if someone is trying to obfuscate their authorship they could probably do so.

tomcam 8y ago

> Academics who are frightened to explore controversial topics, in case it provokes a backlash, will soon have a safer route to publish such work. Assuming any of this is happening in the US, it's an indictment of the whole system. This is what tenure is for. EDIT: Oops, avani beat me to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437414

jf- 8y ago

It’ll last about five minutes. The first issue will see the reviewers and editorial board subject to a hail of condemnation that will threaten or end their careers. Even if the authors are anonymous, everyone identifiable will be attacked for having the gall to give them a platform. All this does is invite people to shoot the messenger, and they will.

ggggtez 8y ago

What incentive other than your reputation is even available to ensure it's not just filled with junk science? We've seen in journals on social sciences, for example, that peer reviewers can be fooled relatively easily. By setting up the incentives like this, won't this just become a bastion of crackpots and frauds?

slivym 8y ago

I've got to say, I can't actually call to mind any instances of controversial peer-reviewed papers. I can point to the Bell Curve- that was controversial, but it was a also a book written by a conservative political operative that made specific governmental policy recommendations. That seems like an entirely different topic to me. Or for another example let's take Jordan Peterson, he's quite clearly written lots of academic papers. But are those controversial? Not really, he's widely regarded as a fine professor of psychology. But does that really wave a magic wand over his head and grant him immunity from being judged for the self-help books he publishes? I don't think anyone reasonable person would agree with that. Also, what protection does pseudonymous authorship afford him? He's literally making a career out of touring different countries giving speeches about the moral decay of western culture. Here's my question: Does this problem actually exist? Or is this misplaced fear about a different issue that actually does exist.

slavik81 8y ago
There was a recent article about an academic paper that was so controversial that it was erased after publication. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318
- slivym 8y ago
  Sorry but you're going to have cite some real sources, not right wing propaganda. I mean, I read the entire article and I still for the life of me can't actually understand on what basis the academic paper was 'erased'. I assume that's because this 'article' is written by the person who is pushing an agenda rather than an actual reporter reporting on the facts of an incident. Frankly the whole thing reads as 'Those nasty people are idiots and dont want people hearing how amazing my work is because then everyone will know how stupid they are!'. I mean really, it's very difficult to actually get any factual information about what happened. It's kind of difficult for me to have sympathy if the only reports of this happening are far right blogs where the author themselves is reporting what happened.
  - slavik81 8y ago