4 ms·

> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel comfortable

> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel comfortable using their real names). The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper, and perhaps to claim it later when he or she is on firmer career footing. Or maybe just to put it out there, and never claim it at all. That seems like an interesting, but perhaps ultimately bad idea. I'm uncertain --- it's certainly interesting. I see that a founder is Peter Singer, who has sometimes in the past suggested that it may be better for a family (financially and happiness-wise) to kill a disabled child and have another [1]. He considers this from an ethical perspective. I can imagine it being frustrating to want to consider hard, taboo ethical quandaries from a neutral standpoint. [1]: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/242543 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/24...

s3r3nity 8y ago
I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a crazy Nazi / Maoist / Fascist / etc etc. - therefore how can you believe anything they say?")
- giantsloth 8y ago
  I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    But this just leads back to my original point - the motives or authority of the speaker for an idea should have little weight into whether or not it's valid or sound. If there is bad information or a biased approach, that would be easy to root out when focused on the facts and logic in a vacuum. Editorializing or investigation into possible motives and the like puts the discussion on something that is not as important.
yters 8y ago
What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.
- nzjrs 8y ago
  Probbable is defence enough I'd say.
  - yters 8y ago
    What's the point of a pseudonym, then?
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  > The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper This is targeted at least partly at academics that aren't that well known.
Waterluvian 8y ago
Geez that idea sounds logical and disgusting. Which I've learned is a sign that we really need to be able to dig deep into it.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Countless topics that are not, in and of themselves, controversial have become incredibly politicized. And this is an issue that seems to only be getting worse over time. Let's take a not so hypothetical hypothetical based on something that recently happened. Not long ago there was a paper published that, using a novel method of measurement, suggested that oceans were heating some 60% faster than thought. It turns out there were key errors in this paper, spotted just hours after publication, that made their conclusion (though not their novel form of measurement) unsupportable [1][2]. A couple of sources there since, as usual, the shocking headline will get a billion clicks, and the corrections maybe a dozen. But whatever, mistakes happen and that is not the point. But imagine now for a minute that this paper was instead going in the opposite direction and using a novel measurement had determined that the oceans were actually warming some 60% slower than thought, but it turns out that due to mistakes that conclusion was not supportable. Think about the backlash there and what would almost certainly end up resulting in personal attacks and suggestion of untoward motivation from the authors. That's nasty business, but things that should just be 'science as usual' have started to become things people take deeply personal. I would feel quite uncomfortable publishing things that go against the grain on a number of topics. And this is before we get into things that ought be controversial. Increasing intellectual conservatism means such topics have gone from controversial to outright taboo. [1] - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-... [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14... ---- Edit: As a perfect example of this, already in this very thread a person has stated an opposition to such journal because "I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been." 'Seeking recourse and investigating the motives' often translates to finding the witch. Publish the 'wrong' idea and suddenly it's time to face the inquisitor. Publish the 'wrong' idea and make a mistake, and the inquisitor needn't waste his time - straight to the gallows with you.

s3r3nity 8y ago

I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a crazy Nazi / Maoist / Fascist / etc etc. - therefore how can you believe anything they say?")

giantsloth 8y ago
I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  But this just leads back to my original point - the motives or authority of the speaker for an idea should have little weight into whether or not it's valid or sound. If there is bad information or a biased approach, that would be easy to root out when focused on the facts and logic in a vacuum. Editorializing or investigation into possible motives and the like puts the discussion on something that is not as important.

yters 8y ago

What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.

nzjrs 8y ago
Probbable is defence enough I'd say.
- yters 8y ago
  What's the point of a pseudonym, then?
daveFNbuck 8y ago
> The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper This is targeted at least partly at academics that aren't that well known.

Waterluvian 8y ago

Geez that idea sounds logical and disgusting. Which I've learned is a sign that we really need to be able to dig deep into it.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

Countless topics that are not, in and of themselves, controversial have become incredibly politicized. And this is an issue that seems to only be getting worse over time. Let's take a not so hypothetical hypothetical based on something that recently happened. Not long ago there was a paper published that, using a novel method of measurement, suggested that oceans were heating some 60% faster than thought. It turns out there were key errors in this paper, spotted just hours after publication, that made their conclusion (though not their novel form of measurement) unsupportable [1][2]. A couple of sources there since, as usual, the shocking headline will get a billion clicks, and the corrections maybe a dozen. But whatever, mistakes happen and that is not the point. But imagine now for a minute that this paper was instead going in the opposite direction and using a novel measurement had determined that the oceans were actually warming some 60% slower than thought, but it turns out that due to mistakes that conclusion was not supportable. Think about the backlash there and what would almost certainly end up resulting in personal attacks and suggestion of untoward motivation from the authors. That's nasty business, but things that should just be 'science as usual' have started to become things people take deeply personal. I would feel quite uncomfortable publishing things that go against the grain on a number of topics. And this is before we get into things that ought be controversial. Increasing intellectual conservatism means such topics have gone from controversial to outright taboo. [1] - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-... [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14... ---- Edit: As a perfect example of this, already in this very thread a person has stated an opposition to such journal because "I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been." 'Seeking recourse and investigating the motives' often translates to finding the witch. Publish the 'wrong' idea and suddenly it's time to face the inquisitor. Publish the 'wrong' idea and make a mistake, and the inquisitor needn't waste his time - straight to the gallows with you.