Anonymity for Authors

Anonymous writing can be for three main reasons:

1. To slander someone
2. To expose someone without suffering the consequences of the expose
3. If someone does not want to be identified but wants to excite discussion amongst readers e.g. an editor, editorial board member, well known writer, someone who does not want his/her position/affiliation to influence readers’ responses to the write-up.

While every well intentioned editor is justified in being wary of anonymous writing whose primary intention maybe to slander or spread malicious gossip about researchers, editors, journals etc, it is equally his duty to be aware of the nefarious goings-on in medical research. Now, it is all right to say that a whistle blower must have the courage to get recognized and adopt a public stand, and most do; but it is equally important to accept that not all can. The line dividing courage and bravado is thin, and not everyone would risk his/her position to become a messiah of change. That does not, however, mean what he/she has to say may not be based on evidence. The editor/editorial board’s prime responsibility is to determine whether it appears prima facie evidence based, like it does for all other manuscripts, and is couched in parliamentary language. Having ensured this, there is no reason why it cannot go for peer review for which, in any case, it has to be anonymous. If the editorial board considers it of great import and time is of the essence, it may even consider it for publication if the journal policies permit such ‘fast track’ publishing. If possible, such publishing should be accompanied by a rejoinder from the authors/journal concerned. If the latter refuse to respond, the editor/editorial board could always mention below the article that they welcome a response/rejoinder/rebuttal even later, provided it is couched in parliamentary language and produces counter-evidence.

In any case, no editor/board/journal should engage in anonymous scandalous writing about another editor/board/journal, taking cover of anonymity. How to ensure this happens is one vexing issue. However, if the parameters are clear, the evidence is strong, the other journal/editor is refusing to publish because it stands to get exposed for its wrong doings, I see no other option but for the article/communication to be published in another journal. The readers will judge it for what it stands, and will definitely pull it down a peg or two for its anonymity, as well as lack of declaration of ‘conflict of interest’. But even if pulled down so, it may still stand scrutiny, and become the start of many other skeletons tumbling out of other cupboards.

In the case of something published in one’s own journal, anonymous rejoinders to published material may be easier to accept, with the rider of evidence and parliamentary language mentioned earlier.

I realize that accepting anonymous writing can open the floodgates of slander/libelous writing, which maybe difficult to lock later, but it is equally important that truth prevails. For those who are high and mighty in research, and who have a reputation of being ruthless towards their detractors, what method of expose is available to those who know about their wrong doings except to reveal the truth under cover of anonymity? In other words, if anonymous writing is not allowed, we allow them to continue till Kingdom Come. And help spawn many more of their ilk, for the smart alecks learn quickly the ropes to climb. Moreover, to expect every truth carrier to also have the strength to bare the consequences of truth telling is to expect each man to be a Christ or a Gandhi. Is it not a little too much?

In the light of the above, I wonder if we could come to the following conclusions:

1. Editors should be very wary of anonymous writing landing on their desks, and in general should be very suspicious of the motives of such writing. Something couched in slander and abuse should be rejected outright.
2. However, if an editor feels there is substantial evidence produced, it conforms to journal style and is in line with journal policies, a serious second/third read must be given. The editor may at this stage encourage the writer/s to remove the anonymity condition so that the writing stands complete, and the authors muster courage. Sometimes an editor’s persuasion may work for the welfare of all concerned.
3. The editorial board then discusses the issues raised in the anonymous article threadbare. If the evidence produced appears irrefutable, it must be sent for peer review, and considered for publication according to the regular process. It must be sent to the concerned person/persons for a rejoinder, wherever possible.
4. The rejoinder, if forthcoming, and only if couched in parliamentary language producing counterevidence, or accepting totally or partially the claims of the anonymous article, whatever, should be similarly considered for publication.
5. In any case, anonymous writing should form only a miniscule part of the journal’s writings, and its rejoinder and counter to the rejoinder should not be used to convert the journal into a tabloid.
6. The controversy should be swiftly resolved. The journal should never play ‘running with the hare and hunting with the hound’ to extract mileage and increase circulation at the cost of researchers’ reputation.
7. No journal should encourage people to write anonymously as a part of its policy, but accept an occasional work of this type in extraordinary circumstances, if and only if there is sufficient prima facie evidence for such an acceptance, and due process of submission and review are followed. Editorial discretion and judiciousness are of paramount importance here.
8. Proper statutory bodies, or judicial process should deal with any journal that indulges in anonymous writing to spread malice and slander about researchers and other journals.
9. Rarely should the editor/editorial board ever associate itself publicly with anonymous writing. The disclaimer about all other work published applies equally to anonymous writing, in fact more so. A clause that it is an anonymous writing and should be judged accordingly is to be added below, and is itself a declaration of conflict of interest of sorts. The editor/editorial board only considers it print worthy based on its content. It does not endorse its contents, however.

I am aware many editors who read this may be tempted to play it safe and avoid anonymous publishing altogether. And maybe they are doing the pragmatic thing after all. For don’t we all know that every editor who survives learns to play it safe. But every editor who not only survives but makes a mark also makes bold to play it on the front foot at times.

Well, each one to decide his course, and his destiny.

Ajai

...................................................................................