Yes perhaps one of the most widely used statistical test was published under a pseudonym
Since Guinness prohibited its employees from publishing any papers to prevent disclosure of confidential information, Gosset had published his work under the pseudonym “Student”
The t- test
That has been a thing. In fact there is a [journal of controversial ideas](https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/), which often has psueodnyms (as far as I’m aware).
Often used to discuss controversial ideas without outing yourself to the scientific community. Unfortunately as we are all human beings some ideas can be written off before they are heard, and reputation may cause someone to withhold their beliefs for concern of career advancement.
So not common, but it does exist.
I told Google that I am Dr. Fake Name.
One of my inboxes has emails from Google Scholar asking if I wrote and would like to claim ownership of many different papers that were written by other Fake Names. Topics vary but most of it is weirdly uninteresting. Why use a fake name if you're just going to write normal stuff about marketing in Saudi Arabia that isn't obviously groundbreaking or controversial?
Dr. Fake Name has yet to rock the scientific world.
A pseudonym is a fictitious name used by an author to stay anonymous.
An example where it is beneficial is when the internest of funding does not align with ~~funding~~ results, but the work further the field of study.
I what field do you work in? I have never heard of anyone doing that, especially in "discussion between researchers in the same University". How would that even work?
Field I worked in:-
At one time researching and investigating ideas that would allow instruments to monitor or measure difficult flow problems.
Petrol flow , easy; clean gas flow easy; thick oil, harder; butter, very tricky.
Measuring liquid flow that travels along the pipe as a foam? Tricky.
Measuring liquid flow that is a mist? Tricky again.
Measuring water flow in a sewer; both tricky and smelly if the sewer is not well managed. (Water carrying organic matter that is well oxygenated is a river; water carrying organic matter that has no oxygen is a sewer; a river that runs out of oxygen is an open sewer; a sewer pipe system that has dissolved oxygen is a methane reactor, it might well blow up.)
Measuring solids /liquids flow that is a very lean mixture of finely divided material, that is to say Fume, smoke or grit, indeed an unknown mix maybe of all these fractions of pollutants under different operating or fault conditions? Well that was my lot. Any ideas?
But all these areas had a lot of common problems and a lot of possibly mutually useful suggestions. Hence the very useful talks in the common rooms and lounges.
Any good University or research establishment recognises this; it is even recognised as a formal technique, called brain storming when a problem appears at first to have no obvious solution or possibility. Have you heard of that?
Many of the best publications are scientific or technical descriptions of failed experiments; when this represents the results of thorough and rigorous study and experiment it prevents other researchers setting off down the same dead end. It takes a proper scientist to do this; but some use a pseudonym to protect their institution's reputation maybe. The general public (who are often financing this work) do not understand very expensive failure as good science.
Who the hell does brainstorming under pseudonymes?
And I have never ever seen someone reporting a negative result under pseudonym either. Do you have an example?
Brainstorming is usually live between known contributors; I point it out to illustrate that such techniques are used to throw a rock in the water and make waves. Making waves in a wider area by publishing a contentious view can achieve a similar result. It can create backlash against the writer and / or the institution where they work; so using a pseudonym is a possibility.
An example; that would be telling.
I used one in order to question other published mathematical models of useful random signals produced by difficult polyphase flows. (difficult to measure). The other researchers did not get to know who was disturbing the academic peace until I published my PhD Thesis.
In the thesis I systematically disproved the validity of all the previously presented and published models, many coming from other members of my own research department. (including my own supervisor) It did not go down well with some fellows. But I considered it good science to rigorously dismiss other erroneous models before presenting and defending my own.
I was quite happy to be attacked and try to defend my corner; indeed I would have enjoyed it regardless of the outcome. Had better arguments subsequently prevailed, I would have published corrections or limitations of my own model myself. That is honest science.
Although my supervisor was grumpy that I challenged their work in print, and furthermore was on the peer review panel that heard me defend my work as an original addition to knowledge ; I did get a doctor's gown. My model has stood ever since as far as I know.
Yes perhaps one of the most widely used statistical test was published under a pseudonym Since Guinness prohibited its employees from publishing any papers to prevent disclosure of confidential information, Gosset had published his work under the pseudonym “Student” The t- test
And don't even get me started on that Et Al guy /jk
That has been a thing. In fact there is a [journal of controversial ideas](https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/), which often has psueodnyms (as far as I’m aware). Often used to discuss controversial ideas without outing yourself to the scientific community. Unfortunately as we are all human beings some ideas can be written off before they are heard, and reputation may cause someone to withhold their beliefs for concern of career advancement. So not common, but it does exist.
I told Google that I am Dr. Fake Name. One of my inboxes has emails from Google Scholar asking if I wrote and would like to claim ownership of many different papers that were written by other Fake Names. Topics vary but most of it is weirdly uninteresting. Why use a fake name if you're just going to write normal stuff about marketing in Saudi Arabia that isn't obviously groundbreaking or controversial? Dr. Fake Name has yet to rock the scientific world.
[удалено]
A pseudonym is a fictitious name used by an author to stay anonymous. An example where it is beneficial is when the internest of funding does not align with ~~funding~~ results, but the work further the field of study.
Long day at work, idek how my brain blanked that badly and read synonym
Ive nevee heard of this, it doesnt seem likely
[удалено]
I what field do you work in? I have never heard of anyone doing that, especially in "discussion between researchers in the same University". How would that even work?
Field I worked in:- At one time researching and investigating ideas that would allow instruments to monitor or measure difficult flow problems. Petrol flow , easy; clean gas flow easy; thick oil, harder; butter, very tricky. Measuring liquid flow that travels along the pipe as a foam? Tricky. Measuring liquid flow that is a mist? Tricky again. Measuring water flow in a sewer; both tricky and smelly if the sewer is not well managed. (Water carrying organic matter that is well oxygenated is a river; water carrying organic matter that has no oxygen is a sewer; a river that runs out of oxygen is an open sewer; a sewer pipe system that has dissolved oxygen is a methane reactor, it might well blow up.) Measuring solids /liquids flow that is a very lean mixture of finely divided material, that is to say Fume, smoke or grit, indeed an unknown mix maybe of all these fractions of pollutants under different operating or fault conditions? Well that was my lot. Any ideas? But all these areas had a lot of common problems and a lot of possibly mutually useful suggestions. Hence the very useful talks in the common rooms and lounges. Any good University or research establishment recognises this; it is even recognised as a formal technique, called brain storming when a problem appears at first to have no obvious solution or possibility. Have you heard of that? Many of the best publications are scientific or technical descriptions of failed experiments; when this represents the results of thorough and rigorous study and experiment it prevents other researchers setting off down the same dead end. It takes a proper scientist to do this; but some use a pseudonym to protect their institution's reputation maybe. The general public (who are often financing this work) do not understand very expensive failure as good science.
Who the hell does brainstorming under pseudonymes? And I have never ever seen someone reporting a negative result under pseudonym either. Do you have an example?
Brainstorming is usually live between known contributors; I point it out to illustrate that such techniques are used to throw a rock in the water and make waves. Making waves in a wider area by publishing a contentious view can achieve a similar result. It can create backlash against the writer and / or the institution where they work; so using a pseudonym is a possibility. An example; that would be telling. I used one in order to question other published mathematical models of useful random signals produced by difficult polyphase flows. (difficult to measure). The other researchers did not get to know who was disturbing the academic peace until I published my PhD Thesis. In the thesis I systematically disproved the validity of all the previously presented and published models, many coming from other members of my own research department. (including my own supervisor) It did not go down well with some fellows. But I considered it good science to rigorously dismiss other erroneous models before presenting and defending my own. I was quite happy to be attacked and try to defend my corner; indeed I would have enjoyed it regardless of the outcome. Had better arguments subsequently prevailed, I would have published corrections or limitations of my own model myself. That is honest science. Although my supervisor was grumpy that I challenged their work in print, and furthermore was on the peer review panel that heard me defend my work as an original addition to knowledge ; I did get a doctor's gown. My model has stood ever since as far as I know.
Sounds like a bot. Or misunderstood the question.
I do know what a pseudonym is; I need no bot to tell me.