it's academic freedom without responsibility, and it's carelessness

Roland Barthes proclaimed the death of the author in 1967, claiming that once written, the text constitutes an independent entity to be interpreted and understood by the public, without the intentions of the author, his idiosyncrasies and his personal history do not interfere.

Barthes's idea is to make manifest the Journal of Controversial Ideas. It proposes to allow academics to publish articles on controversial topics under a pseudonym. The hope is that it will allow researchers to write freely on controversial topics without the risk of social disapproval or threats. Thus, the journal eliminates the author's motivations, conflicts of interest and the worldview of presenting a potentially controversial idea. This proposal announces the death of the academic author – and, unlike Barthes, we think it's a bad thing.

A story of dissimulation

First of all, we must distinguish anonymous authors and pseudonyms: an article is anonymous if it does not list a name and is pseudonymous if it lists a name that is not the author's first name. Both practices have a long history in academic research.

The Philosophical Operations of the Royal Society – the world's oldest scientific journal – was originally published without the names of the researchers who conducted the experiments. It was only after the development of the legal institution of the author in the 17th century that the named authors became the norm.

The Victorian bestseller, Remnants of the Natural History of Creation, which presented a first version of the theory of evolution, was originally published anonymously. His readers had to wait 40 years and 12 editions to discover that it had been written by Robert Chambers. Malthus' population-based test, which develops his theory of population growth, was also published for the first time anonymously.

More recently, there are some notable examples of paternity under a pseudonym. From 1939, a group of rotating mathematicians used the collective pseudonym "Nicolas Bourbaki" to publish the current series Elements of Mathematics, which has 11 volumes published over 70 years. The Polymath project, which brings together solutions to solve mathematical problems, also published some of his articles under the pseudonym "D.H.J Polymath", initials of the density theorem of Hales-Jewett, the first problem on which the project focused.

The philosopher David Lewis, who published an answer to one of his own articles under the pen name Bruce Le Catt, is another example. Indeed, this year again, three American academics have published seven articles, written under pseudonyms or borrowed identities, accepted in various social science journals as part of an elaborate hoax.

In many cases, the identity of these writers was an open secret when publishing – everyone knows who is behind the Polymath project, for example. Even when the intention is to conceal, the identity of the writer is usually revealed.

The best way to attribute paternity is currently an open question. Issues such as ghost paternity, hyper-reactivity and hyper-productive researchers challenge traditional notions of fatherhood – and many proposals for revision have been made. The Journal of Controversial Ideas should be included in a discussion of authoring practices that are best suited to the goals of academic research.

Why bother to have authors?

To examine the viability of pseudonymous paternity, one must think about the interest of having authors.

An important reason why a researcher attaches his name to a document is to allow him to apply for the corresponding credit. Although the details are incomplete, the drafters of the proposed journal appear to have provided a system for authors to claim ownership of the materials for hiring and promotion purposes. Similarly, writers may also choose to hide their papers for hiring and promotion purposes, if it is not advantageous to claim the right of ownership, this would benefit their career.

For the reader of a document, it is important to attach the authors to documents to help them decide whether to take the results seriously. Here, the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous authors becomes important: if an author uses the same pseudonym for a while, the academic community can begin to get an idea of ​​the quality of its work (consider the pseudonym Bourbaki, which was used ), but if a publication is anonymous, the audience must rely solely on the credibility of the journal and its publishers.

But the most important function of authors is to facilitate responsible publication. If the 1998 Lancet document linking the MMR vaccine to autism had not cited Andrew Wakefield as the lead author, it would not have been possible to hold him accountable for producing fraudulent work or for having contributed to a dangerous anti-vaccination story. The responsibility of the author has a taste both intellectual and moral: we want to empower individuals for both poor research and the moral consequences of their publications.

Academic quality control

Holding responsible authors works within the framework of academic quality control. If researchers know that producing bad work has social and professional consequences, it encourages more careful and diligent work. Likewise, the moral accountability of the authors encourages sufficient caution on subjects that may cause real harm.

We fear that pseudonym paternity will lead to a problematic asymmetry between eulogy and blame. If the Journal of Controversial Ideas manages to secretly keep the identity of the researchers – and we doubt, given the history of the pseudonym – the researchers will be able to publish articles, claim them if they get a positive reaction and disavow them if they do not.

The interest of the journal to establish a good academic reputation may lead them to put in place review procedures to ensure that only quality work is published, but their interest in the controversy suggests that the journal could be much more lax in terms of moral responsibility. . We fear that the Journal of Controversial Ideas will react to moral criticism by stating that its mission is precisely to publish controversial and dangerous ideas.

Defenders of the Journal of Controversial Ideas see it as a forum for true academic freedom. Although academic freedom is important, it is not an unlimited right. Freedom without responsibility is an imprudence. It is a lack of consideration for the danger or the consequences of his ideas. True academic freedom does not mean that writers must choose when to avoid controversy. The pseudonym author proposal allows authors to manipulate the credit and criticism systems of the academy in the name of academic freedom.

A university survey is a conversation when it works well. Researchers make claims and counterclaims, exchange reasons and work together to open new areas of investigation. A conversation needs speakers: we need to know who is speaking, what they have already said and who they are talking to. Pseudonymous paternity is a disengagement from conversation, and the academic community will be less well off if its members do not want to engage in intellectual conversation anymore.