Online Anonymity: Anonymously Publishing Articles

I will be presenting a case against anonymously published articles (online anonymity to that extent). The first round will be for acceptance only.

Thanks for accepting, Pro. I look forward to an interesting debate.

A Brief Note: In a recent article in the journal "Bioethics", Francesca Minerva argues in favor of anonymity for the safety/well-being of the authors of potentially controversial articles and extends this case in favor of the use of pseudonyms. For the sake of clarity in my case, I will not make delineation between absolute anonymity and the use of pseudonyms. I fail to make these distinctions because my premises will address both uniformly, and when considered, both bear the same ultimate impact (at least, to the extent that I examine in this first round). Additionally, much of my case will be borrowed from Robert Baker's article "Against Anonymity" (I say this now to avoid unsightly source references appearing sporadically throughout the case).

I. Anonymity Holds No Constructive Purpose In The Academic World

Let us first look at the more appealing half of anonymous publishing. This contention will address the claim that anonymous publishing ensures safety for authors. Assuming that anonymous publishing did not have the negative effects that I will address in point II, it still holds no place in the academic world. Authors of articles should ensure that the content of their writing is not unnecessarily offensive, but they should equally not feel threatened to publish and openly defend academic papers that they have constructed. If the papers are not academic and exist only for the sake of provocation, then that provocation is (to an extent) justified; if the papers are academic, then that provocation is not justified.

II. Anonymity Is A Tool Often Misused

Anonymously published articles can be used negatively is several ways. These are the main reasons that we would not accept anonymously published articles validity in print as well. The three mains flaws that Robert Baker identifies are "corruption of scholarly discourse by invective and hate speech, masked conflicts of interest, and a diminution of editorial accountability". Anonymous publishing removes the accountability from authors to that extent that many would use this advantage to publish articles containing unnecessarily provocative material or to write papers misrepresenting opposing causes. Such behavior has no place, and as such is not correctly defensible.

I extend all arguments. I hope my opponent is well.

Extend.

Vote Con. Unfortunate it ended so abruptly