A number of bloggers blog under pseudonym. Unfortunately these writers refer to themselves as anonymous bloggers. Writing under pseudonym means you use a fictitious name, a name different from your own, whereas corresponding anonymously means you use no name at all. On many Internet discussion forums users register under pseudonyms. Their real identity might be known to the forum moderators, but it is certainly not disclosed (unless the long arm of law would be involved, of course). As a matter of fact forum owners often warn new users not to use or reveal their real name in their posts.

I can imagine basically two reasons for posting under pseudonym:

1. Physical protection and other security considerations. Bloggers can be very personal in their blogs. These private accounts can give beautiful insights in family life, and in for instance the two-body problem. Pseudonimity keeps the creeps, that want to harass the blogger, out of the private sphere of the blogger.
2. Career protection. Pseudonymous bloggers can discuss and expose questions that would cost them their job if their identity would get known. Examples (example 1 and example 2) exist where people got fired because of the content of their blog.

Bloggers discuss regularly (example 1 and example 2) various aspects of blogging under a false name.

I empathize with people that, because of the above reasons, cannot make their name known. The point of the discussion I want to start here concerns pseudonymous and anonymous contributions to science.

Context of discovery
Part of practicing science occurs within the context of discovery. It relates to imaginative thinking. Getting ideas and inspiration. Anybody can contribute here: scientists and non-scientists, bloggers and non-bloggers, anonymously or under pseudonym. An apple falling from a tree can inspire somebody to come up with a theory of gravity.

Context of justification
When hypotheses are formulated, tested, when observations are reported and explanations are put forward we have entered the context of justification. This is the regime of the Scientific Method. New findings have to be presented following a strict format. Much of the appraisal of these reports is based on trust. In principle all reports could – and in a minority of cases should – be checked and its findings be reproduced by independent parties. And indeed when a discovery seems to have important – scientific or practical – consequences this verification will certainly take place. During this shaping period of a subject a scientist, or group of scientists (in possibly varying composition) will extend, refine, adjust, correct, or even withdraw their earlier contributions. For this continuous process to work the community must know the identity of the researcher(s).

Peer review
As a first line of quality control scientific manuscripts submitted to journals will be reviewed by colleagues whose identities will not be revealed to the authors. The journal, with its prestige, integrity and quality of editors acts as a body of trust. The responsibility for the content of a paper remains with the authors, but publication of a manuscript means that, at that point in time, a superficial check by a few professional scientists of the content of the manuscript has not uncovered any obvious mistakes or shortcomings. And acceptance of the paper implies that the scientific content seems to be obtained and presented according to professional guidelines.

Scientific contributions by bloggers
In the context of Web 2.0 it is often claimed that this Internet development will radically change the way science will be done. In the context of discovery this might certainly be true. Collaborations can be set up more easily. All sorts of data sharing will be used.

But for this web-2.0 prediction to become a reality for the context of justification, a system of trust has to be set up. This system of trust includes the necessity of the identity of the scientists that want to participate, to be known, or be known by an agency that is trusted by all scientists. How this system of trust (“SciTrust”) could be set up I will comment on later. Without such a trust or certification authority there will be no science to Web 2.0. Whatever untrusted bloggers try to contribute.

Follow