Degrees of difficulty in ascertaining credentials

I am disgruntled to see the names of CMAJ authors published without the authors' degrees. I have always rapidly screened credentials to decide if, when, and in how detailed a fashion I would peruse an article. I know I can get used to this jarring change in the CMAJ but I disapprove of it.

If the purpose of the omission is to take the focus off the author and put it on the article, then the policy is having the reverse effect. I am now compelled first to turn to the end of the article to see who really is the author. Is it a clinical medical colleague? A basic scientist? A priest? A social worker? The head of an institute of alternative medicine? A freelance writer? (I'm not suggesting that these categories are mutually exclusive, nor that I wouldn't possibly be interested in articles by all such authors.)

Omitting degrees is a friendly, equitable gesture but it does not work for this reader.

Appendix 1

[Editor's note:]

As John Stoffman correctly discerned, CMAJ wishes to emphasize the content of what we publish and not the qualifications of the authors. The variety of letters after people's names has been growing; while some of these may be as familiar as the MD degree, in other cases it was becoming difficult to determine whether they were in fact academic degrees and what they meant. Most degrees do not describe the subject matter of the degree, only the degree level (undergraduate, masters and doctoral). Our preference is to describe the current position or occupation of the author, not their level of qualification.