Johnmac,

Why, that is notable, indeed. In addition to the nitpicking thing, It also enables them to avoid retribution when their critiques prove to be unjustified, and possibly improves their chances to get funding/research grants for their own research as well, yes?

In fact, there are many good reasons why such peer review is anonymous, correct? One could draw profound parallels between scientific peer review and government watchdogs and journalism, couldn't one?

Would authors of fiction be able to write under an alias under this legislation, or would that be a thing of the past as well?

Kev

Hi Greg.

Trevor James - who's he? Oh! He's the chap who emailed/pmd me directly when I was searching for my Stick just to let me know about alternative tapping instruments. I informed him I would rather wait for the real thing.

I understand your point entirely Greg. I don't actually remember anything that was outright removed from here; as has happened on other forums; I don't think anyone would be blocked from posting pretty much anything here within reason. Stickist is one of the most polite and open forums I have encountered and I would never have a problem identifying myself to anyone who asked or if I felt it was required to underline anything I might want to comment on.

My concern is that in the wider context, freedom of speech may be curtailed to an extent by Governments taking control of the internet by whatever means they have. For example if a journalist were no longer able to offer anonymity to a source then investigative journalism goes out of the window. Those who might have reason to fear being exposed could then act with impunity - Watergate comes to mind!

Although it also allows people like Trevor to plow their furrow and seed misinformation as they please, perhaps it is a price worth paying in order to allow those who can only reach a wider audience via the web to do so. If it comes to a point that to use the internet at all, you have to identify yourself or produce some kind of virtual license, for most people that is not a problem we do not have anything to hide but do you want it to be like that. The criminal and the terrorist will always try to find ways of circumventing any measures put in place to track them. Identity theft is now one of the biggest crimes in the UK, fake I.D. is big business. If the net is locked down, then anyone who wants to get around that will simply get some kind of fake I.D. The security services and the police already catch many of the nasties out there by monitoring their traffic - my question is why would anyone want to know that I visit Stickist 10 times a day unless they want to control my Stick addiction. Horror - what if an alternative tapping instrument maker [as if there is any real alternative to the Stick] was more in favour with the Government than Emmett - all traces, mentions of Chapman Stick might be blocked erased from the web entirely!


Going back to the American War of Independence, imagine if only the British had been allowed to ride horses - would have been a long walk for Paul Revere.

And anyway what about the bees? Without the bees we lose the major pollinators for most of our food crops - did you vote for the bees Greg?

All the best.
Andrew. [but is that my real name???]

Me too
*fist bump*

It does seem that anonymity makes a person more honest in the case of the scientific community...
And I would also say that for the internet community in a way. Anonymity brings out the truth of a person, as in what kind of person they really are.
A troll with no anonymity is still likely a troll, you just won't see it until you allow them to hide there identity.

I DO post under my identity, always. But not my complete name...
Somehow I just don't want someone doing a search for my specific name and pulling up everything. Or some one using the name I post under to find other information.
IP addresses will reveal all... But I guess I would rather require a greater degree of effort to obtain information.

Hi Andrew,

Here's more "Trevor": http://simply-socialsite-traffic.com/

After seeing what has happened to his forum I would have to say:
"he who lives by the search engine dies by the search engine."

Sorry, I didn't vote for the bees. They'll hit their signature quota. But I do garden, so I love the bees. I'll think about it.

So Tracktor=Chronos=Trevor? He has more aliases than an America's Most Wanted feature story.

The fact that Traktor has to create yet another fake name/online identity to hawk some merchandise only confirms my suspicions about him.

Was "Traktor Topaz" (which I think is his 3rd name since the one his momma gave him) so sullied and disrespected that he had to create a new one to try to sell his new elixirs to unsuspecting consumers?

Randy

So Emmett? Are you not so keen on secret ballot as well?

Ya gotta love the bees - mmmm honey.

Trevor Traktor James Topaz Plonker - the guy is ..... well most people here know what he is. I remember ads in magazines in my rapidly disappearing youth - oh who am I kidding disappeared youth - "Get rich quick - get girls quick - get muscles quick'" you know the ones. As the man said, "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

If you type Greg into a search engine see what comes up - if you type surfindogg into a search engine - oops. Varnon you are right. Manny, how can I change my username to Andrew without losing my history on the forum?? So much for anonymity! You find my ebay profile, that I am into astronomy, Chapman Stick and I drive a Honda Civic. Dig a little deeper who knows.

So am I hiding behind this username? I think Andrew would be far more anonymous.

And everyone - vote for the bees whether they are going to reach the signature quota or not - the more the merrier. There are bumble bees and solitary bees we used to have in our garden 20 years ago that are no longer here. Check the link and make up your own minds. I haven't got time to go around with a paintbrush pollinating my own flowers!!

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_be ... 299&v=8114

First - Yes, anonymity provides a shelter from retribution for intentional or unintentional malice in the peer review process. I take that to be a bad thing. Someone is hiding behind a cloak of anonymity with the intention of an unfair or inaccurate review is wrong. If on the other hand the bad review is unintentional, then that person shouldn't be reviewing. In both cases, lifting the cloak would help the review process be more honest.

There are good reasons for anonymity in peer review. In contrast to the "honesty" point made above, reviewers would think twice about giving a deserved poor review to a highly influential colleague. Thus, anonymity in this case protects a reviewer from unjustified retribution.

Interesting that in both cases the reviewer is protected from retribution whether deserved or not.

With that conclusion, I would contend that a person should stand by their words. If they are honest, then those listening will likely see that. If they are dishonest, then those listening will likely see that too.

And putting my money where my mouth is - johnmac = John MacDougall, and I approve this message....

Cheers

John

*fist bump back*