The editors and publisher of a US climate journal asked COPE about publishing content anonymously following the recent “gag orders” placed on the US Environmental Protection Agency. The editors wanted to promote actively a new policy, while the publisher was encouraging evaluation of each situation if/when anonymity was requested. How should the journal proceed?
应付council provided the following advice.
This is a difficult issue as transparency is important in publishing but the approach probably has to be done on a case-by-case basis. COPE would support this idea in principle. A key issue is that the editors must know who is publishing. While transparency is a key value, an even greater one is minimizing harm. On that basis, the work around we have used in the past is that the editor, or publisher, should be aware of the authors' identities to ensure a proper process.
This is really an editorial issue that the journal editors have to make and declare. It may not be for the publisher to decide. The publisher should respect the editorial freedom of the editorial boards and the editor-in-chief. A suggestion would be for the editors to convene their editorial board and get everyone on board if they are to actively promote the anonymous communication of results that go against the gag order. The editors should have a very clear, and defendable, reason to grant anonymity to the author. Some explanatory text from the editor/publisher should be included to frame the situation and the editor/publisher should be willing to act as an intermediary if pertinent queries come from the readership.
If we believe that in countries with no freedoms we should protect authors who want to publish when going contrary to the prevailing order, in effect, protect them from being persecuted for their ideas/research, then we should apply this same principle to other countries that have democratic regimes, such as the US, the principle being freedom of speech and academic/professorial freedom.
对于希望发布其政府不赞成的人的建议是选择一个在不同国家发布的杂志。假设通常的质量控制是到位的（没什么借鉴的，并且很难在陪同管辖区内实施限制。
The following COPE cases have dealt with similar issues:
Inability to contact an author to obtain permission to publish
Anonymity versus author transparency
Research integrity: What happens next, when COPE responds to public consultations and inquiries?
Similarly, the
Mark Allin，Wiley总裁兼首席执行官讨论了Wiley的核心价值观，包括基于证据的科学作为公共政策解决方案的基岩
However, this article, published inPLOS Oneshows that biomedical studies covered in the media are often initial results and contradicted by later analyses, and the public are rarely informed when the results are disconfirmed
一个补救措施：已被任命为一个新的Cochrane委员会加强科克兰内部的科学诚信和监督
This focus on evidence based research leads to a focus on data. Sabina Leonelli and Louise Bezuidenhout argue that it also leads to the rising prominence of a data centric approach to scientific research, where concerns over data sharing and use in the long term take precedence over immediate attempts to analyse data
Credit where credit is due: research parasites and tackling misconceptions about academic data sharing
John Antonakis, the newly appointed editor of
Blacklists unreliable and unethical
Identifying predatory or pseudo journals
Meanwhile, David Crotty (in Scholarly Kitchen) and Liz Wager (inJournal of Epidemiology)提出的问题是否p的崛起redatory journals is in fact a response to deeper problems within the academic research establishment
And this Retraction Watch blog notes the worrying new ways in which companies are trying to subvert academic publishing
Academic conduct of US nutrition and behaviour lab
Report from