EXPLORE:
About Us
Reporting from the frontiers of health and medicine

Unnamed Sources Policy

GenoMethods prefers named sources and uses anonymity rarely, with editorial review, justification and corroboration where reasonably possible.

Updated

When Anonymity May Be Considered

  • the information is materially important to the subject being reported;
  • the source has direct and credible knowledge of the information;
  • the source's identity is known to the relevant editor;
  • the information cannot reasonably be obtained on the record;
  • there is a legitimate reason for confidentiality;
  • important claims can be corroborated where reasonably possible.

No single factor automatically justifies anonymity. The editor should consider the importance of the information, the source's access and the reason public attribution is not reasonably available.

When Anonymity Will Not Normally Be Used

  • personal attacks;
  • unsupported allegations;
  • routine opinion that could reasonably be stated on the record;
  • promotional claims;
  • competitor attacks intended primarily to cause harm;
  • speculation presented as fact;
  • unsupported medical, legal, financial or safety claims.

Editorial Decision Process

  1. The editor confirms the source's identity.
  2. The editor evaluates how the source knows the information.
  3. The reason for anonymity is assessed.
  4. Potential financial, professional, competitive, legal or personal motivations are considered.
  5. Available corroborating evidence is reviewed.
  6. The editor determines whether the public or editorial value justifies anonymity.

Anonymity does not convert an unsupported claim into verified information. The evidentiary value of the source still depends on knowledge, credibility, context and corroboration.

Corroboration

Anonymous claims should be corroborated where possible through:

  • documents;
  • public records;
  • regulatory filings;
  • scientific data;
  • official statements;
  • additional independent sources.

Single-source anonymous claims are generally avoided for serious or potentially damaging allegations because the reader cannot independently evaluate the identity and possible interests of the source.

How an Unnamed Source Is Described

Where possible, an article should explain why the source has relevant knowledge and why anonymity was granted without revealing information that defeats the purpose of confidentiality.

Descriptions should not exaggerate the source's seniority, access or expertise. A description should give useful context without implying authority the source does not actually possess.

Sensitive Allegations

Additional caution applies to claims involving:

  • drug safety;
  • clinical efficacy;
  • patient outcomes;
  • regulatory actions;
  • material financial information;
  • legal allegations;
  • reputation;
  • public safety.

In these areas, an anonymous assertion should not be treated as a substitute for reliable documentation or independent confirmation where those are necessary to support the claim.

Right of Response

When an unnamed source makes a serious claim about a person, company or organization, GenoMethods should consider whether the subject should have a reasonable opportunity to respond. A response may provide context or evidence relevant to evaluating a disputed allegation.

Reader Trust and Corrections

Anonymous sourcing reduces the information readers can use to assess a source directly, which is why GenoMethods aims to use it sparingly and provide meaningful contextual description where possible.

If information attributed to an unnamed source is later shown to be materially wrong, the published material remains subject to the same correction standards as other reporting.

Sourcing concerns: corrections@genomethods.org

Related Pages

GenoMethods
1 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
United States