Letter to the Editor

The Importance of the Anonymous Voice in

Postpublication Peer Review
Dear Sir,
I wish to address the issue of anonymity within the
context of science publishing. The anonymous persona is
already an established player in traditional peer review
(TPR), more so in double-blind than in single-blind peer
review, in which the identity of the so-called peer
reviewer remains concealed. Yet, the function and importance of anonymity within the context of postpublication
peer review (PPPR) is a gray zone in science, technology,
and medicine (STM). The PPPR movement has gained
considerable traction and has been fortified by sites such
as PubPeer (www.pubpeer.com) and Retraction Watch
(www.retractionwatch.com) that allow for anonymous
comments or criticism of the scientific literature, a function
that has traditionally been performed by the editors of
STM journals. Thus, platforms that allow for open and
anonymous discussion of science-related issues, including
the literature, can be debated relatively freely without
having traditional editorial tethers attached. Actual or perceived biases in TPR, as well as its insufficiencies and
weaknesses, also have further fueled the rise of the anonymous scientific voice, a section of which is discontent with
papers that have appeared in their final published form.
The anonymous voice, which has allowed scientific papers
that contain scientific flaws, plagiarism, or duplication to
be detected, questioned, and criticized, has stimulated
greater discussion about the merits or demerits of TPR and
is now cementing itself as an integral part of PPPR. Even
so, overall, the STM community still feels reticent and
ambiguous about its function and importance. On the other
side of the fence, readers also need to grasp the personal
and professional risks to the person behind the anonymous
mask when publicizing criticisms. Papers with serious
errors are more likely to be retracted when discussed in
public (Van Noorden, 2014).
To better cultivate a culture of anonymity that is not
associated with mistrust, the scientific community needs
guidance on how that voice can or should be heard and used.
Currently, no STM publishers have guidelines in place as

part of their author instructions that recognize or incorporate

the importance of the anonymous voice into TPR, but that
gap will surely change as more and more cases of misconduct, or errors in the literature, appear registered in public as
a direct result of these anonymous voices. As one example,
I have set out a road map for how PPPR can be achieved
(Teixeira da Silva, 2015), cementing the need for and importance of anonymity in STM publishing.
For the PPPR road map to work, and for the anonymous
voice to become acceptable and commonplace in STM publishing, serving as a correcting factor to TPR, there has to be
a change in the mind-set of the core players. This includes
authors and their research institutes, editors and their journals, and the publishers that represent them, all of whom
would need to be receptive to anonymous complaints and
comments and be willing to act swiftly upon such complaints. The current TPR infrastructure might not easily
accommodate anonymous claims in the short term, given the
current stress that already exists within the peer pool.
However, rudimentary mechanisms dealing with such
anonymous voices are developing, as can be seen with the
white paper published by the Committee on Publication
Ethics on whistle-blowing (Barbour, 2013).

References
Barbour, V. (2013) Responding to anonymous whistle blowers: COPE
Discussion Document. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/
Whistleblowers_document_Final.pdf
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015). A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences:
Cementing a road-worthy action plan. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 5(2), 1521.
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Publicly questioned papers more likely to be
retracted. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14979

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

P.O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office
Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken
761-0799
Japan
E-mail: jaimetex@yahoo.com
Published
2015
in Wiley
Published online
online28
in July
Wiley
Online
Library
Online
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23588
10.1002/asi.23588

2015 ASIS&T

JOURNAL
JOURNAL OF
OF THE
THE ASSOCIATION
ASSOCIATION FOR
FOR INFORMATION
INFORMATION SCIENCE
SCIENCE AND
AND TECHNOLOGY,
TECHNOLOGY, 67(1):243,
():, 2016
2015