Request for Anonymity Policy

Requests may arise in relation to:

• authors;
• commentary or correspondence contributors;
• whistleblowers;
• complainants;
• persons reporting publication-integrity concerns;
• research participants;
• case-report subjects;
• reviewers;
• editors in exceptional conflict-sensitive situations; or
• other persons whose identity may require protection.

Different categories are governed by different principles. Reviewer confidentiality under double-anonymised peer review, for example, is not the same as anonymous authorship.

Any decision concerning anonymity should consider:

• the seriousness and credibility of the claimed risk;
• the person's role in the publication process;
• whether identity is necessary for accountability;
• whether conflicts of interest can still be assessed;
• whether authorship criteria can still be satisfied;
• whether a less restrictive privacy measure would be sufficient;
• legal or ethical requirements; and
• the effect on readers' ability to evaluate the publication.

JPMHR may consider a request for public anonymity where disclosure of an author's identity could create a credible and substantial risk, such as:

• personal safety risk;
• credible threat of persecution;
• serious retaliation;
• unlawful discrimination;
• risk arising from reporting serious wrongdoing;
• exceptional security circumstances; or
• another comparably serious reason.

Routine professional sensitivity, fear of criticism, or preference for avoiding association with a controversial argument does not ordinarily justify anonymous authorship.

Where an author is publicly anonymous, JPMHR may still require confidential access to:

• the author's real identity;
• verified contact information;
• institutional information where relevant;
• authorship declarations;
• conflict-of-interest disclosures;
• ethical declarations;
• contribution information; and
• other records required for editorial accountability.

This information should be accessible only to persons who reasonably need it for editorial, integrity, legal, or technical purposes.

Verification may involve:

• institutional email confirmation;
• direct confidential correspondence;
• existing journal-account records;
• ORCID or other scholarly identifiers where appropriate;
• confirmation through an authorised representative; or
• another reasonable verification method.

JPMHR should avoid collecting unnecessary sensitive documentation where identity can be verified adequately through a less intrusive method.

JPMHR may require confidential disclosure of:

• financial interests;
• institutional relationships;
• employment;
• litigation;
• political or advocacy roles directly relevant to the manuscript;
• research collaborations;
• personal relationships; or
• other material competing interests.

Where a conflict must be disclosed publicly for readers to evaluate the work, the journal should consider whether that disclosure can be made without unnecessarily revealing the person's identity.

An anonymous author must still be able to:

• approve the final manuscript;
• take responsibility for the content;
• respond to editorial questions;
• provide supporting records where legitimately required;
• disclose competing interests;
• cooperate with corrections or retractions;
• confirm authorship and contribution; and
• participate in integrity procedures if necessary.

Where a pseudonym is approved:

• the journal should retain the verified real identity confidentially;
• the pseudonym should not falsely imply a different real person;
• authorship responsibility remains with the verified individual;
• conflict checks must still occur; and
• the publication record should remain internally traceable.

A person reporting a concern may request that their identity not be disclosed to the persons being investigated.

JPMHR will consider:

• whether disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness;
• whether retaliation is a credible risk;
• whether the concern can be investigated without revealing the source;
• whether legal disclosure obligations exist; and
• whether identity information can be minimised.

Anonymous reports are evaluated according to the quality and specificity of evidence rather than rejected solely because the source is unidentified.

Reviewer identities are not ordinarily disclosed to authors or readers.

Reviewer identity may nevertheless be known to authorised editorial personnel and may be used internally for:

• conflict checks;
• reviewer management;
• peer-review integrity assessment;
• investigation of misconduct allegations; or
• other legitimate editorial purposes.

Authors should avoid unnecessary disclosure of:

• names;
• initials;
• medical-record numbers;
• exact addresses;
• full facial images;
• rare combinations of clinical details;
• genomic identifiers;
• family relationships;
• geographic information; or
• other information capable of identifying participants.

Where an individual remains identifiable, appropriate consent for publication may be required.

Identification may remain possible through:

• rare disease characteristics;
• specific dates;
• unusual treatment history;
• institutional details;
• facial or body features;
• family history;
• genetic findings; or
• other distinctive clinical information.

Consent for publication may therefore be necessary even where direct identifiers have been removed.

Anonymity may be inappropriate where:

• the requester cannot establish their identity to the journal;
• authorship responsibility cannot be verified;
• conflicts of interest cannot be meaningfully assessed;
• the request appears intended to conceal misconduct;
• the identity itself is material to evaluation of the publication;
• legal requirements require attribution;
• the proposed anonymity would mislead readers;
• the requested pseudonym impersonates another person; or
• the circumstances do not demonstrate a sufficient legitimate reason.

Depending on the circumstances, alternatives may include:

• removing unnecessary biographical information;
• withholding personal contact details;
• limiting institutional detail;
• using a confidential correspondence route;
• restricting internal access to identity information;
• using a pseudonym;
• protecting a complainant's identity during an investigation; or
• modifying public metadata without altering authorship accountability.

JPMHR should assess whether identity appears in:

• article landing pages;
• PDF files;
• HTML full text;
• DOI metadata;
• table of contents;
• author biographies;
• ORCID metadata;
• repository deposits;
• indexing feeds; or
• other public scholarly metadata.

JPMHR can control its own records but cannot guarantee removal of information already cached, copied, indexed, or archived by independent third parties.

JPMHR may consider:

• the seriousness of the new risk;
• whether the author can still be internally identified;
• effects on citation continuity;
• whether metadata can be updated;
• whether a public notice would create further risk;
• third-party indexing limitations; and
• whether another remedy, such as a name change, is more appropriate.

Where a change can be implemented without affecting scientific content, the journal may update identity-related information without explaining sensitive circumstances publicly.

A notice may nevertheless be necessary where:

• authorship itself changes;
• publication responsibility changes;
• the scholarly record would otherwise become misleading;
• a legal requirement applies; or
• another material reason requires transparent documentation.

Inappropriate uses may include:

• concealing a fabricated author identity;
• hiding a material conflict of interest;
• avoiding accountability for research misconduct;
• impersonating another scholar;
• making malicious allegations without accountability;
• circumventing journal sanctions; or
• misleading readers about authorship provenance.

Where misuse is suspected, JPMHR may require further verification or take appropriate integrity action.

Where practical, JPMHR should:

• restrict access to authorised persons;
• avoid unnecessary duplication of sensitive records;
• avoid publishing internal identity information;
• use secure journal or institutional communication channels;
• retain only information reasonably necessary for legitimate purposes; and
• respond appropriately to suspected confidentiality breaches.

A request should ordinarily identify:

• the publication, submission, or complaint concerned;
• the form of anonymity requested;
• the nature of the risk in sufficient terms for assessment;
• whether the person's identity may remain known confidentially to JPMHR;
• any urgent safety concern; and
• the preferred method of confidential communication.

The requester need not provide unnecessary personal information beyond what is reasonably required to assess the request.

The decision may consider:

• credibility of the stated risk;
• severity of potential harm;
• availability of alternative safeguards;
• authorship accountability;
• conflict-of-interest transparency;
• reader interests;
• legal or ethical requirements;
• technical feasibility;
• metadata consequences; and
• scholarly-record integrity.

A conflicted editor should not be the sole decision-maker where the anonymity request concerns that editor or a related dispute.

Concerns may involve:

• unnecessary disclosure of identity;
• inadequate conflict-free review;
• failure to consider a credible safety risk;
• incorrect metadata handling;
• procedural unfairness; or
• another material implementation issue.

• COPE Guidance and Resources
• ICMJE Recommendations
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, certification, or endorsement unless independently established.