The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Anonymizing self-referencing papers?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question about anonymity protocol in submitting a certain kind of paper. Right now I'm writing a response to a paper, where the paper I'm responding to is itself a response to an earlier paper of mine. I'm a little unclear on what anonymizing the [new] paper would mean here, given that I'll be defending my earlier paper in depth, extensively citing it, possibly explaining what I had in mind in certain passages, etc. It's difficult for me to think of a way not to make it obvious to reviewers that I'm the author of the earlier paper. I suppose I could frame the new paper in the third person, saying things like "Here's what [my name] could say in response to criticism X…" I worry, though, that that would simply make the paper sound more stilted while still leaving it obvious, given the very nature of the paper, that I'm the author of the earlier paper. Has anyone else come across a similar situation and/or have any tips on handling it?

Good question! I suspect that what the other describes doing (referencing themselves in the third-person) is the best way to handle these cases, and that unfortunately there's not much more that can be done to prevent a referee from inferring that you are probably the author. But perhaps there are some tricks to handling this issue that I'm not aware of. Do any of you have any helpful tips? It could be good to hear not only from authors who have experience with this, but also from referees, as the latter could provide an inside perspective on how things come across to journal reviewers.

Posted in ,

7 responses to “Anonymizing self-referencing papers?”

  1. Richard Y Chappell

    Just write the paper as if you are another person who shares the view of the original author. No need to write clunky things like “Here’s what [my name] could say…” Just go with, “We [proponents of this view] may reply…”

    Reply
  2. Tim

    I second (or third?) the recommendation to write in the third person.
    To make a further recommendation, it may be better to not frame the dispute as ‘Author A [you] says this; but Author B say that.’ You could re-frame the dispute over what thesis is true. So instead of having many sentences like ‘One could say…’ or ‘The original author would say this…’ You can say things like, ‘If the view proposed in such-and-such paper is correct, then…’ This might reduce stilled phrases. (And, in general, I think it is better for us to frame disputes in terms of what views or theses are true and not what one person could/would say to another.)

    Reply
  3. JR

    Ask the editor of the journal how you should proceed. I did and the editor said I can write it in the first person, so I did and they published my reply.

    Reply
  4. Was once a grad student

    I’m the reader who posted the original question. Thank you for hosting the discussion, Marcus, and to those who’ve shared their thoughts.
    I think I’ll start with your strategy, JR. Then, if the editor recommends writing the paper in the third person, I’ll do so, keeping in mind the advice of Richard and Tim above.

    Reply
  5. Evan

    I would say things like “X’s critique or response is not compelling because….” or “X argues that P. However, [insert counter-argument or counter-example without referencing yourself].”
    The phrase: “The original author would say Y” is awkward to me unless it’s a historical figure like Aristotle. Be assertive and straightforward by putting a counter critique or response without referencing yourself. If I’m writing a response to a response, then I’m putting forward my own response even though I know that the original author would agree with me.
    I do this to give myself credit for my own thinking and not to the original author since it is my work. I’m giving myself credit for my own thinking. Take ownership of your idea even if it’s something the original author would agree with. If it’s a response to a response of my work, then I’ll do the same. The only difference in this case is to stay anonymous and not to hint that I am the original author. I’m making them think I’m a third party.

    Reply
  6. Evan

    If the author made a strawman fallacy of your original article or argument(s), then it would be appropriate to reference yourself. For example, you can write: ”X claimed that P. However, they are mistaken because A stated Q.”
    Just make sure you indicate that your paper is a response to a response to the original paper. You can say, ”X’s article [title] is a response to A’s article [title] arguing that P. In this article, I argue that X’s response is not compelling or convincing because of B, C, and D.”

    Reply
  7. all is fair

    One thing worth mentioning, and probably this is more relevant to previous discussions of this issue on the blog rather than the current post to which I am responding, is that communicating that you (whoever you are!) have other publications can help your cause. So this is in general preferable to citing your own work explicitly but hiding that it is your work.
    Why is communicating that in your favor? Because it shows your referee(s) that you have had work published before. This might nudge them towards an R&R.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading