Perceptions of journal editors on the use of eponyms in anatomical publishing: the need for compromise

While arguments have been made both for and against the value of anatomical eponyms, limited research exists regarding their use by anatomists. As the editors of the principal international anatomy journals have purview and control of terminology in anatomical journals, their perceptions regarding the relevance, ethics and inclusivity of eponym use in anatomy and in publishing in anatomical journals were investigated. A validated, confidential and anonymized self-administered questionnaire which included open-ended questions was distributed to the 22 Editor-in-Chiefs/Senior Editors of anatomical journals. Of the 16 (73%) editors who responded to the survey, only 56% were aware that eponyms had been censured since the time of the 1895 Nomina Anatomica. The majority of responding editors found the use of Latin- and Greek-derived terms more valuable when communicating with students and peers, but also thought eponyms were acceptable in manuscripts submitted to their journals. Thirteen (81%) of the responding editors agreed that eponyms play a vital role in the history of anatomy, and some thought they were important for discussing bioethics concepts. However, 62.5% felt that there were valid reasons for their discontinuation. Half of the respondents did not consider the continued use of eponyms an ethical concern. Responding editors of anatomical journals prefer the use of Latin- and Greek- derived terms when interacting with other anatomists and students. However, the continued use of eponyms was seen as an important opportunity for discussion on the history and ethics of anatomy.