Should editorials be signed?

There’s a new post at the Scientist about differing practices among journals on the signing of editorials. The piece only discusses biomedical journals - among those relatively few journals have ones just signed by the journal; more and more are signed directly by the authors and some (like the journal I work at) does something in between. We’d be interested to hear what journals at COPE do, especially those outside of biomedicine – are there differences in tradition according to the journal's speciality?

Comments

  • Posted by Fabiana, 20/7/2012 1.51pm

I think retractions sholud be at least linked to the original papers and reasons for retracting papers sholud be clearly stated. Recently the retraction of number of papers written by a high profile Australian scientist from Sydney appeared in JBC (and other journals). No reason was provided. Since only the senior author was the common author in all retracted papers, it is not clear whether his other work can be trusted. Yet, no comments or statements from his institution have been published. In the mean time the alleged scientist keeps winning awards.