I should have done this by now...

Today marks the day of 12 years of blogging. Twelve years! During this time, I ' ve managed to remain a mysterious pseudonym to almost everyone. Very few people know who I am.But a lot has changed since then. TheOpen Science movement, the rise of multiple platforms for critique, theReplication Crisis in social psychology, the emergence ofmethodological terrorists, data police, and destructo-critics. Assertive psychologists and statisticians with large social media presences have openly criticized flawed studies using much harsher language than I do. Using their own names. It ' s hard to stay relevant...Having a pseudonym now seems quaint.The most famous neuro-pseudonym of all,Neuroskeptic, interviewed me 2 years ago in a post onPseudonyms in Science. He asked:What led you to choose to blog under a pseudonym?My answer:It was for exactly the same reason that reviewers of papers and grants are anonymous: it gives you the ability to provide an honest critique without fear of retaliation. If peer review ever becomes completely open and transparent, then I ’d have no need for a pseudonym any more.In an ideal world, reviewers should be identified and held accountable for what they write. Then shoddy reviews and nasty comments would (presumably) become less common. We ’ve all seen anonymous reviews that are incredibly insulting, mean, and unprofessional. So it’s hypocritical to say that bloggers are cowardly for hiding under pseudonyms, while staunchly upholding the institution...
Source: The Neurocritic - Category: Neuroscience Authors: Source Type: blogs