We are handling a manuscript that is now ready for acceptance. During the review process we noticed that one coauthor had the surname "999" and this coauthor and two others had the affiliation "Independent researcher". We asked the corresponding author what this meant. Their answer was that the names of two of these three authors, including "999", were pseudonyms. The paper was based on a competition, and the corresponding author explained that they had utilised pseudonyms when participating as they had taken part as independent researchers working on personal interests outside their company office hours. They wish to continue to do so even upon receiving recognition. They stated that they fulfill ICMJE's authorship criteria and are real individuals. They welcome advice on how to proceed should pseudonyms not be appropriate.
Questions for Council
- Can coauthors use a pseudonym on a published paper?
- If yes, do the given circumstances justify this?
- If yes, should the pseudonymous authors reveal their real identities to the editor?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
COPE Council was unanimous in their feeling that the use of pseudonyms is not warranted in this case. Transparency and accountability are key in scholarly publishing and readers should know who authored the paper and are responsible for it. Transparent authorship is also necessary for the full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and bias. If necessary the authors could state that the work was done independently of their institution, but their affiliation should still be disclosed, either with their name, or in a COI statement. If the latter course is taken then it is up to the journal to decide whether this should be made public, or whether the author/s can be listed as independent researcher/s.
There are cases where it is appropriate for authors to use pseudonyms but this would be where making their identity public could lead to scenarios like arrests or violence against them, and that does not seem to be the case here. Even in scenarios like these, however, the Editor in Chief should still be informed of the authors’ names. In cases where authors feel that disclosing their names could violate work agreements (for example, non-competes) then this should be referred to them to work out, possibly in collaboration with their employer to ensure internal compliance.
Using pseudonyms may also create procedural complications for journals, such as how to link ORCID ids to the authors, so if a journal is to support such a move then it must be fully confident that there are risks to the authors which justify masking their identities.
If the publisher does not have text in their guidelines on this then it may be helpful to consider developing some, for example, along the lines of ‘No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor.
The journal sought advice from their legal team who recommended that pseudonymous authorship would only be considered on a case-by-case basis, and where the content related to a highly sensitive area, or if there was a genuine threat to the safety of the author. In the current situation the request should be addressed via a conflict of interest statement at the end of the article or a statement saying that the author’s views are not connected to their employer is what we would need to do. Authors being in dispute with their employer or wanting to distance themselves from their employer, privacy concerns, or controversial content would not be considered acceptable reasons for using a pseudonym.
The editor suggested to the authors that a statement be added to the article saying that the research is unconnected to their employer and does not reflect the views of their employer.