Academic Freedom and Anonymous Peer Review

You certainly have the right to give out your name. I will note that the majority of the people here don't give out their names regardless of how strongly the hold onto their opinions.In any event, the issue is not whether peer review in general ought to be changed, but whether a court can force an anonymous review site to give up names because someone has gotten bad reviews that they claim are defamatory. In my opinion, the ACLU overstates and distorts the issues regarding the problems with peer review. But I think they are dead on regarding the issues regarding anonymity. And of course they are talking about a court case in the United States.As a person who considers the First Amendment as of nearly primary importance, I value anonymity.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the anonymity that makes PubPeer work is under threat. A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation. And he is trying to use a subpoena to force PubPeer to turn over whatever identifying information we have for them.

---

I'd want to see the comments before I picked a side here. That's one principle. Another is that you also ought not be subject to a Slapp suit to keep you quiet simply because you have something truthful to say.In an ideal world, speech would battle more speech. But in the world we live in, sometimes free speech without anonymity is essentially impossible.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really? When you say 'potential', do you mean that more people read an issue of 'Nature' or read this newsgroup than watch any random Oprah show? Or ever will? I think not.And so what? People here discuss all kinds of issues and give their opinions about all kinds of stuff. And that's exactly what's going on with the web site in question. I have offered my opinion here about 'technology' I feel does not work or is fradulently presented. But I'm not prepared to take on a law suit to defend myself if the inventor does not like it. And I don't think that is the standard that I or the host of this site ought to be held to when posting here.Well the ACLU's law suit is allegedly about people doing thing similar on another web site. You certainly aren't doing that here. But more to the point, if you were liable of being sued for your opinions, I suspect that you'd be more circumspect about what you say.In any event, the issue with openness on PubPeer.com is not just about being man or woman enough to backup what you say, but also being put to the expense and occupation of your time defending a law suit about what you say.In some countries, the law is so goofy that even the truth is not an absolute defense to a defamation suit. At least that's not the case in the US, but it's also the case that in , the US, law suit winners generally pay their own costs. Sure Ringo. Why don't you start that movement right here?

Perhaps so. I'm not willing to make that call without looking at what the comments were. People say all kinds of stuff online. Criticizing a scientist work is one thing, but sometimes anonymous criticism can cross over into unwarranted accusations of dishonesty or actionable and baseless impugning of character.

Thanks for adding some detail. I agree. PubPeer is in the midst of the controversy simply because they don't want to disclose information identifying posters. Apparently they are resisting a subpoena. That probably would not reach the level of actionable defamation. However the level of insult that constitutes defamation is much lower when the subject matter is accusation of committing a crime, immoral acts, capability to perform one's profession, or having an odious disease, or dishonesty while performing one's profession.What if she claimed to have information about you giving herpes to a 15 year old and her claim resulted in you getting fired from your job as a teacher? What if that claim was completely fabricated?That said, the comments as you describe them seem mild and probably not defamatory. I don't think that's even the issue. A subpoena to provide information about a third person does not cast any blame on Percy. I suspect that the offer letter would have left an out for this kind of mind change. Any competent lawyer would have advised doing so.