Retributions against environmentalists have been escalating in recent years around the globe. A record number of environmental defenders were murdered in 2021, breaking the record set by the previous year (Global Witness, 2021). Environmental scientists have also faced various legal and professional consequences for publishing data or perspectives contrary to those promoted by governments or industry (Dickman & Danks, 2012; Driscoll et al., 2021; Letnic, 2000). Despite the intensity of threats to environmentalists, and the potential for anonymous publishing to mitigate some of these threats (Calver, 2021; Letnic, 2000; Minerva, 2014), there are still no reputable options for anonymous or pseudonymous publishing in academic journals.

Governments and private industry alike have committed acts of retaliation against environmentalists across the globe. Environmental scientist David Gaveau, for example, had his office raided and was deported from Indonesia after publishing wildfire area values substantially larger than those reported by the government (Rochmyaningsih, 2020). Similarly, in Turkey, scientist Bülent Şık was imprisoned for over a year for independently publishing research, commissioned and then buried by his own government, revealing a link between pollution and cancer in western Turkey (PhysOrg, 2019). Developed countries are certainly not immune either, with Sweden-based scientists threatened with legal action by private corporations over publication of a study revealing a link between tax havens and environmental exploitation (Galaz et al, 2018; Stockholm University, 2018). Scientists reporting on the impacts of development projects, in particular, are often the focus of attacks and suppression from project proponents in both government and industry (Laurance, 2019).

This lingering threat of retribution also contributes to a climate of fear around publishing critical data. For example, I was recently informed by colleagues from multiple organizations that it would be too risky to add their names to a penned article on how perverse legal, political, and economic structures promote environmentally destructive development. Many recommended I publish anonymously to avoid reprisals from powerful parties.

Similarly, governments and industries around the world routinely suppress statistics on environmental impacts either until they can be released quietly, or sometimes indefinitely (Alvares, 2021; Nature Conservation Council, 2018). Australia provides a poignant example, as government-funded coral bleaching survey results, withheld potentially for political reasons (Cox, 2022), were only officially published after being leaked to the media. Suppression of studies on environmental degradation has numerous impacts, such as hindering our ability to accurately identify and quantify threats to vulnerable species and ecosystems, as well as impacts to global cycles. This suppression also has significant global impacts outside of scientific communities, including consequences for human health posed by pollution or oil spills (Brockovich, 2022). Anonymous scientific publishing may facilitate the release of such data, which would otherwise be buried, to scientific communities and the public.

While there has been little support for anonymous publishing in science to date, I believe environmental science would benefit from an anonymized journal for the publication of particularly poignant results. Anonymous publishing in science, however, is a controversial topic, with strong opinions on either side (Neuroskeptic, 2013; Teixeira da Silva, 2017). A common concern raised when discussing anonymous scientific publishing is the credibility of data and perspectives published from behind a mask. By using anonymous publishing an individual or group may, for example, fabricate data to support vested interests or discredit competitors (Neuroskeptic, 2014). In this instance, Wikileaks may provide a model example of an anonymized journal. In addition to its encrypted dropbox, Wikileaks employs various highly sophisticated steps to verify the source and accuracy of leaked documents. Integration of such a system into a particularly rigorous peer-review should improve confidence in the veracity of publications. Additionally, an increased focus on detailed methods reporting and data transparency would likely improve confidence in publication integrity.

Another step to ease concerns surrounding data integrity could be to require identification at the point of submission and anonymize throughout the review and publication process. Attaching an identity at submission would discourage misappropriation of anonymity and ensure articles meet the same quality standards as those submitted to any other journal. This method would also allow scientists to maintain a verified record of anonymous publications for future use in success metrics if it becomes viable to do so. However, this method may require more complex security infrastructure and legal protections.

Although Wikileaks already publishes environmental data to some extent, there is little integration of this into the broader scientific community. Similarly, while the information may enter the public domain, named academic publications using these data may still attract retaliation (i.e., Galaz et al., 2018). While it may be possible for multiple journals to provide an anonymous publication format, the necessity and complexity of robust cybersecurity infrastructure and legal protections might mean it is more feasible to establish a dedicated anonymous journal. Centralization of anonymous publishing would also mean people ‘know what they are getting’ when engaging with said journal, as any anonymous publishing must be held to the highest possible standard to prevent misuse.

Given the intensity of retributions against environmentalists globally, and the potential for anonymous publishing to mitigate some of these risks, I believe there would be strong support for an environmental-science-specific anonymous journal.

近年来，全球对环保主义者的报复不断升级。2021 年有创纪录的环保捍卫者遇害，打破了前一年创下的记录（全球见证，2021 年）。环境科学家还因发布与政府或行业推动的数据或观点相反的数据或观点而面临各种法律和专业后果（Dickman & Danks, 2012 ; Driscoll et al., 2021 ; Letnic, 2000）。尽管对环保主义者的威胁很严重，并且匿名出版有可能减轻其中一些威胁（Calver，2021；Letnic，2000；Minerva，2014)，在学术期刊上匿名或假名发表仍然没有信誉良好的选择。

各国政府和私营企业都对全球的环保主义者采取了报复行动。例如，环境科学家大卫·加沃 (David Gaveau) 在公布的野火面积值远高于政府报告的值（Rochmyaningsih，2020 年）后，他的办公室遭到突袭并被驱逐出印度尼西亚。同样，在土耳其，科学家 Bülent Şık 因独立发表研究被他自己的政府委托然后埋葬而被监禁一年多，揭示了土耳其西部污染与癌症之间的联系（PhysOrg，2019）。发达国家当然也不能幸免，瑞典科学家因发表一项揭示避税天堂与环境开发之间联系的研究而受到私营公司采取法律行动的威胁（Galaz 等人，2018 年；斯德哥尔摩大学，2018 年）。特别是报告开发项目影响的科学家往往是政府和行业项目支持者攻击和压制的焦点（劳伦斯，2019 年）。

这种挥之不去的报复威胁也助长了对发布关键数据的恐惧气氛。例如，最近来自多个组织的同事告诉我，将他们的名字添加到一篇关于不正当的法律、政治和经济结构如何促进破坏环境的发展的文章中太冒险了。许多人建议我匿名发布以避免强大政党的报复。

同样，世界各地的政府和行业通常会压制有关环境影响的统计数据，直到它们可以悄悄发布，有时甚至无限期发布（Alvares，2021 年；自然保护委员会，2018 年）。澳大利亚提供了一个尖锐的例子，因为政府资助的珊瑚白化调查结果可能出于政治原因而被隐瞒（Cox，2022)，只是在泄露给媒体后才正式发布。抑制对环境退化的研究会产生许多影响，例如阻碍我们准确识别和量化对脆弱物种和生态系统的威胁以及对全球循环的影响的能力。这种抑制在科学界之外也具有重大的全球影响，包括污染或石油泄漏对人类健康造成的后果（Brockovich，2022 年）。匿名科学出版可能有助于向科学界和公众发布这些数据，否则这些数据将被掩埋。

虽然迄今为止几乎没有对科学领域匿名出版的支持，但我相信环境科学会受益于匿名期刊，因为它可以出版特别尖锐的结果。然而，科学领域的匿名出版是一个有争议的话题，双方都有强烈的意见（Neuroskeptic，2013；Teixeira da Silva，2017）。在讨论匿名科学出版时，人们普遍关注的一个问题是从面具后面发表的数据和观点的可信度。例如，通过使用匿名发布，个人或团体可能会伪造数据以支持既得利益或诋毁竞争对手（Neuroskeptic，2014）。在这种情况下，维基解密可能会提供匿名期刊的典型示例。除了加密的保管箱外，维基解密还采用各种高度复杂的步骤来验证泄露文件的来源和准确性。将这样的系统整合到特别严格的同行评审中应该会提高对出版物真实性的信心。此外，更加关注详细的方法报告和数据透明度可能会提高对出版物完整性的信心。

缓解围绕数据完整性的担忧的另一个步骤可能是要求在提交时进行识别，并在整个审查和发布过程中匿名。在提交时附上身份将阻止滥用匿名，并确保文章符合与提交给任何其他期刊的文章相同的质量标准。如果可行，这种方法还将允许科学家维护匿名出版物的经过验证的记录，以备将来用于成功指标。然而，这种方法可能需要更复杂的安全基础设施和法律保护。

尽管维基解密已经在一定程度上公布了环境数据，但很少将其整合到更广泛的科学界。同样，虽然信息可能会进入公共领域，但使用这些数据的命名学术出版物仍可能会招致报复（即，Galaz 等人，2018 年）。虽然多个期刊可能提供匿名出版格式，但强大的网络安全基础设施和法律保护的必要性和复杂性可能意味着建立专门的匿名期刊更为可行。匿名出版的集中化还意味着人们在与所述期刊互动时“知道他们得到了什么”，因为任何匿名出版都必须遵守尽可能高的标准，以防止滥用。

鉴于全球范围内对环保主义者的强烈报复，以及匿名出版以减轻其中一些风险的潜力，我相信会大力支持专门针对环境科学的匿名期刊。