A publisher has recently become aware that an article published in one of their journals two years ago uses pseudonyms instead of the real names of the two authors. Communication with the corresponding author has confirmed the use of pseudonyms. The corresponding author has informed the publisher that the authors used pseudonyms in order to obtain a fair review of the paper (the paper is in an area of research where double-blind peer review is not the norm and the topic is controversial with strong opinions on both sides). The corresponding author has also informed the publisher that the address provided on the paper (which appears to be a private address where the authors may or may not be located) was used because the authors had been told by their employer that as this piece of research was not directly germane to their employment (by a national government agency) they must conduct it in their own time.
The publisher is not aware of any issues with the science presented in the paper that would require an editorial action.
Question for COPE Council
- Does the use of pseudonyms (without prior disclosure to the Editor) require action on the published article, and if so what action would COPE advise?
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.
It is not appropriate for authors to give false names in a submission without the express permission of the editors. There are very occasional cases where one or more of the authors in a paper may be pseudonymous or anonymous on the published byline if, for example, publishing a paper might put them in danger and there is a clear public interest in the paper being published. One instance of this might be health workers in a repressive regime writing on evidence that was in contradiction to the regime's position.
However, in any such circumstance the editors have to have assurance about the identity of the authors.
To encourage better practice, COPE would recommend the journal have a policy that papers will only be accepted when the identities of the authors are confirmed, and these will be used in publication unless a case for use of pseudonyms is accepted by the journal.
In this case, now that the paper is formally published, the concern of using pseudonyms to obtain a fair review of the paper no longer exists. The journal could consider issuing a corrigendum correcting the names, to be fair to the readers. Transparency is the key principle here, and the authors should have let the editors know of their concerns and listed several reviewers that the editors should avoid to obtain a fair review rather than using pseudonyms.