A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.
Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)
Contact: marvan@ut.edu
Blog mission & moderation policy
In the comments section of our most recent "How can we help you?" post, a reader asks:
Say I am (somewhat) in a (the?) closet and decide to publish something scholarly anonymously or pseudonymously. I don't mind my colleagues knowing, but I'd rather my mom didn't google me and find this. I need to put it on my CV. Do you know of any issues that can arise with not having one's name or institution on a paper?
Any thoughts?
I would think if it’s published pseudonymously that you can’t put it on your CV. How could you prove you wrote it?
And if you do put it on your CV, it will not be anonymous for long!
I would think you can list the publication but it probably won’t count for much. I assume it is not in a major journal, or everyone would be wondering who is this mysterious philosopher “Pseudo”? So insofar as it is not in a major venue it will not get you a job. But were it in a major journal, then, unless someone verified your identity (not your mother, of course), a committee may question whether it is really YOUR paper.
We need to have citizens who have the courage to stand by what they say and write. we have seen lessons from blogging that when comments are anonymous they tend to be flippant and coarse. If what you wish to publish is “scholarly” then you should stand by what you wrote. On the response side, those who read and offer criticism of such work, should do so in the same constructive manner that they would accept constructive comments.
This made me think of the book, The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. THese men took on the topic of race, gender and education and admitted that not everyone was the same. This “revelation” caused many heads in the left wing education establishment to explode.
Dr. Murray went on to publish many more books related to his research on this subject and had the courage to not back down. I greatly admire those willing to stand by their research, especially those who weather criticism from those who are so often not motivated by good science, but whose complaints are merely political propaganda.
How does “having the courage to stand by what you say” improve someone’s arguments? I see this sentiment often expressed and am puzzled by it. Good criticism addresses the arguments and evidence not the author. Being willing to take on criticism may be praiseworthy as a personal characteristic but it seems to me irrelevant to assessing arguments and evidence.
A possible exception to this line of thought might be that it is sometimes legitimate to know someone’s motivation in arguing what they do, e.g. knowing some climate change denier is being funded by ExxonMobile, but even in these kinds of cases that information is useful only as a warning that the evidence is likely to be suspect in some way. A proper criticism should still address the evidence and not stop with the identity of the author.
Leave a Reply