Editors, Environment

Editorial Note

Introduction

Editorial note. Explore unsigned articles in current and past issues. Many correspondents believe the authorship is obvious, even without direct attribution in publications.

Abstract

Certain of the articles in the last issue were unsigned, as are some in this. Many correspondents and local or beyond the reach of direct retaliation, have intimated, courteously or otherwise, that the authorship is obvious.

Review

This "Editorial Note" serves as a concise, albeit rather terse, communication addressing a specific procedural aspect of the journal's content presentation. Its primary function is to acknowledge reader feedback concerning the authorship of articles, specifically the practice of publishing unsigned pieces in both the last and current issues. As an editorial statement, it effectively highlights a perceived discrepancy between the journal's publishing policy (anonymity) and the reality of reader perception, where many correspondents believe the authorship of these articles is "obvious." The content of the note raises several pertinent points for consideration regarding editorial policy and reader trust. The implication that authors might be "beyond the reach of direct retaliation" suggests a rationale for anonymity, perhaps related to the sensitive or critical nature of the unsigned articles. This speaks to a potential commitment to protecting contributors, which can be a valuable aspect of journalistic integrity. However, the subsequent revelation that readers overwhelmingly find the authorship "obvious," communicated both "courteously or otherwise," indicates a significant disconnect. This feedback challenges the efficacy of the anonymity policy and could, if not addressed further, lead to questions about the journal's transparency or even its perceived candor with its readership. In summary, as an editorial piece, this note successfully registers a significant reader concern without offering an immediate resolution or deeper explanation. While it fulfills the role of acknowledging a prevalent sentiment, its brevity means it functions more as a statement of fact than a dialogue or justification. It effectively signals that the journal is aware of the ongoing discussion around unsigned articles and their perceived authorship, but leaves the reader with outstanding questions regarding the underlying reasons for such policies and the journal's future approach to balancing author protection with reader transparency.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.