[slivym]

I've got to say, I can't actually call to mind any instances of controversial peer-reviewed papers. I can point to the Bell Curve- that was controversial, but it was a also a book written by a conservative political operative that made specific governmental policy recommendations. That seems like an entirely different topic to me. Or for another example let's take Jordan Peterson, he's quite clearly written lots of academic papers. But are those controversial?

Not really, he's widely regarded as a fine professor of psychology. But does that really wave a magic wand over his head and grant him immunity from being judged for the self-help books he publishes? I don't think anyone reasonable person would agree with that. Also, what protection does pseudonymous authorship afford him? He's literally making a career out of touring different countries giving speeches about the moral decay of western culture.

Here's my question: Does this problem actually exist? Or is this misplaced fear about a different issue that actually does exist.

[slavik81]

Somebody posted another article on threats to academic freedom today[1]. Specific examples are cited in its links. The general idea is basically this:

> I have heard too many stories from my China-based colleagues about rights infringements to list. Common problems include: universities and publishers demanding that research questions and conclusions are in line with the current political orthodoxy, restrictions on traveling abroad for professional conferences, and incessant invitations to “have tea” with security agents.

> Political repression is shutting down many more areas of academic inquiry than just labor scholarship. As the Chinese state cracks down on an increasing array of social actors, including rights lawyers, feminists, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities—both Muslim and Christian—the related topics become off-limits to academic researchers.

It sounds exactly like the sort of thing the journal in this article is for:

> An international group of university researchers is planning a new journal which will allow articles on sensitive debates to be written under pseudonyms. They feel free intellectual discussion on tough issues is being hampered by a culture of fear and self-censorship.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18445470

[slavik81]

There was a recent article about an academic paper that was so controversial that it was erased after publication. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318

[slivym]

Sorry but you're going to have cite some real sources, not right wing propaganda. I mean, I read the entire article and I still for the life of me can't actually understand on what basis the academic paper was 'erased'. I assume that's because this 'article' is written by the person who is pushing an agenda rather than an actual reporter reporting on the facts of an incident. Frankly the whole thing reads as 'Those nasty people are idiots and dont want people hearing how amazing my work is because then everyone will know how stupid they are!'. I mean really, it's very difficult to actually get any factual information about what happened. It's kind of difficult for me to have sympathy if the only reports of this happening are far right blogs where the author themselves is reporting what happened.

[slavik81]

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the whole thing is a right-wing propaganda piece. Isn't the result the same? The fear is real regardless of whether it's proper or baseless.

If you want to ensure that academics don't self-censor out of fear of reprasials, you could prove to potential authors that their fears are baseless, or you could provide mitigations for their fears. Or, you could do both.

[slivym]

I would've thought it's self-evident that if the problem isn't real then you're never going to fix it. If the reason this problem exists is a political tool for the right wing then the way to stop it won't be to pander to it.