> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the[y] advocate for and report on

The first-line accountability is deliberately on the editors rather than the reporters.

While I can understand the point of view, focus on the content not who the writer is, I'm not really a subscriber. I like to have some sense of a person's background on a subject the less I follow it. It also sets a ceiling on the amount of trust you can develop with readers IMHO.

    In a paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, a team led by Sara Ryding, a PhD candidate at Deakin University, in Australia

I think that's the author we should care about, not who wrote the article in The Economist.

> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on.

This is a really weird interpretation of "it's editorial policy". The journalists aren't declaring anything about their confidence in what they're reporting. It's not their choice.

So why are they working at the Economist? Because (1) it's hard to get a journalism job, and (2) the Economist is a prestigious place to work.

I wouldn't read too much into it.

First, journalists shouldn’t be “advocating” for anything. Second, a byline only serves the purposes of allowing ad hominem attacks rather than focusing on the content.

Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the content of the article and not the author.

I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this choice here, under "Author anonymity": https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions

It lessens the incentive for journos to chase clout and try to inject their "personal brand" into their writing. Personally, I love it.

The way they do it is significantly better than almost any other magazine out there in my opinion.