The nano.org project is currently in early beta testing. However, the policy described below is already in effect and should be observed by all users. Read more about the beta test here.

Whenever a scholar composes a new post for a research discussion thread, that scholar may choose either to attach his/her name to the comment or to have it appear anonymously. The first person to choose anonymity within a thread is identified as "Anonymous α", and so on with β, γ.. of course. If the individual identified as "Anonymous α" later makes another anonymous post then the system recognizes this fact and again uses the original "Anonymous α" moniker, so that it is possible to follow the flow of discussion.

We emphasize that the identity of any poster can be determined, if necessary, by a site Operator though inspecting certain access logs - thus the option to post anonymously is not a license to abuse the discussion process without accountability. However, even in the event that a user has been abusing the option to post anonymously, that user's identity would not be publicly revealed by the site Operators. The nano.org site has been designed so that users can feel confident that their anonymous posts will indeed remain anonymous - and the Operators will always act to ensure this is the case.

Inappropriate usage

• Engineering the appearance of two posters. Generally speaking there are very few occasions where it would be appropriate to post BOTH under one's name AND anonymously within the same discussion thread. Doing so will create the impression that those sets of posts are originating from two different users. It is certainly inappropriate to exploit this to engineer a discussion with oneself, or to give the impression that a second user is leading support to one's ideas.
  It is conceivable that, for example, a user may initially post anonymously, and then later in the discussion a point may arise that she wishes to answer by citing a number of her own publications. Since doing so under the original label ("Anonymous α", say) would give a big "clue" to her identity, it would be appropriate to make the second post under her own name. However, in such circumstances it is good practice to avoid, as completely as possible, touching on the topic of the original anonymous post.

• Hiding the origin of positive posts. A user wishing to support his own work, or that of his close colleagues, might be tempted to make an anonymous post in order that other readers will not recognize his affiliation. This would be inappropriate behavior - it is important that the community should be able to judge the closeness to the original authors.

Generally, the rule is that anonymity should only be employed when the poster could not otherwise make completely honest remarks - usually because of the risk of alienating a colleague.