How to anonymise your paper | Beth Hannon | How To, Part 5

 

As we’ve mentioned in various places before (for example, here), the BJPS operates a triple-masked system. That means that none of the paperwork you submit should identify you. Sounds straightforward, right? And yet, and yet…

 

How to Fail to Anonymise Your Paper

1. Leave your name on it

 

As self-explanatory as it is self-identifying, and more common than you could possibly imagine. 

 

2. Identify your previously published work in all but name

 

In (XXXX, 2014), I argued for a position that I termed the ‘Self-Identifying’ Argument. Anyone qualified enough to act as referee for this paper is very likely to be familiar with this work and thus screw you, anonymous review.

This makes your editor cry.

 

In (Hannon, 2014), she argued for a position she termed the ‘Referring to Oneself in the Third Person Is Sometimes Okay’ principle on the grounds that very anonymous.

This gives your editor warm and happy feelings.

 

3. Name drop

 

Just say no. While this may not reveal your identity, it does reveal your ‘insider’ status. 

 

Much respect to Prof Big Shot #1, Prof Big Shot #2, all my homies from the Oxbridge massive, keepin’ it realism.

 

Many thanks to Aristotle for pressing me on this point (personal correspondence).

 

If your paper is published, you can acknowledge the help of anyone and everyone who has ever helped you; but until that point, keep your connections under wraps!

Failure to properly anonymise your work will result in your precious paper being brutally redacted. There will be ugliness.

 

Brave new online world

 

A far trickier issue arises when it comes to making your draft paper available via any of the variety of online repositories for academic papers. Someone expert enough to be called on to review your paper is likely to be keeping up with what’s being published, for instance, on philpapers or in the philsci archive. We ask referees when they accept our invitation to review to let us know if they can identify the author and, further, to refrain from trying to identify the author (for example, by googling the paper’s title). But even with the best will in the world on the part of referees, anonymity can be compromised. For example, some sites generate notifications for subscribers of papers recently uploaded in their chosen categories. 

 

If you don’t feel particularly worried by the biases of referees—implicit or otherwise—the benefit of having your paper available online as soon as possible may well outweigh any drawbacks. However, if you think that anonymous review might be a Good Thing, then think carefully before making your paper available online in this way. At the very least, use a different title. 

 

 

Comments

[David Wallace]

I feel that (2) is easier said than done.

If I write

"I have argued elsewhere that "worlds" should be understood in terms of decoherent branches (Wallace 2003,2007) and that probabilities are no more problematic here than in the classical case (Wallace 2012,ch.4) and in any case are understandable in terms of decision theory (Wallace 2011,2012 ch.5); in this paper I will assume these positions without argument"

then I'm not sure what's gained by replacing "I" with "Wallace" in the first line.

[Beth]

I'm not so sure. I see plenty of papers that largely follow your second formulation when the author of the submission *isn't* the author of the cited articles. At the very least, it leaves room for doubt.

Relatedly, there's often a worry that better-known authors will be easily recognised, and this does sometimes happen; but often younger academics are influenced by their more senior colleagues, in terms of writing style and philosophical content. Referees wrongly identify authors of papers as someone more senior with some regularity.

[Filippo Contesi]

In my writing I've been assuming that one should not just "assume" positions one has argued for in previous published papers, but at least give a snapshot of the arguments in support of those positions and then refer to those previously published papers. If one does this then rule (2) seems to become even less troublesome to adopt. Have I been assuming wrongly?

[Beth]

Not at all; I think that's a very good assumption. If word length becomes an issue, say, that might be something to revisit, but there's no harm in making your paper as easy to follow as possible!