Six months ago, I proudly announced Blogging's First Academic Paper. That was when Perspectives in Psychological Science became the first scientific journal to publish an article under a blogging pseudonym (an adaptation of this post). But while the blogging bit was new, many scientists have published work anonymously or pseudonymously before... as I explain in my second 'Neuroskeptic' paper, which is out now. It's called Anonymity in science in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Here's the abstract:
The history of science is replete with important works that were originally published without the author’s legal name being revealed. Most modern scientists will have worked anonymously in their capacity as peer reviewers. But why is anonymity so popular? And is it a valid approach? I argue that pseudonymity and anonymity, although not appropriate for all forms of scientific communication, have a vital role to play in academic discourse. They can facilitate the free expression of interpretations and ideas, and can help to ensure that suggestions and criticisms are evaluated dispassionately, regardless of their source.
I don't think I'm allowed to post the whole text here, unfortunately.
UPDATE: But you can read it free for the next two months,
Neuroskeptic (2013). Anonymity in Science Trends in Cognitive Sciences DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.004