While all scholars understand that it is necessary to conform to ethical standards prior to conducting research as well as during the conduct of research, the standards may begin to slip or may face particular challenges once the research has been completed. This chapter will examine some examples of ways in which post-research activities that may violate ethical rules and may put some of the researchers’ interlocutors or interviewees at risk. This may particularly be the case because of the increased culture of sharing draft documents with colleagues via e-mail or on the Internet. In such situations, researchers may forget to, or incompletely, redact the names of individuals whose comments have yet to be cleared. Yet the individuals are no less placed at risk for having their name or general identity circulated in such a fashion than they are having their name cited in a ﬁnal published document. Similarly risks may arise where the process of publication requires or seeks to require that the author reveal the names of his or her sources. Law journals in particular insist upon provision of such information, even though they insist that they will only hold it in their ﬁles and will not share it with any individuals. Nonetheless, maintenance of anonymity and conﬁdentiality remains important throughout the process, particularly where informants are at risk. This chapter will discuss the dilemmas that may confront authors in seeking to maintain protection of both the identity and security of their interlocutors, whilst still engaging in collaborative sharing of academic ideas and information. The chapter proceeds through the presentation of three incidents with clear ethical implications, and one with more complex implications for academic independence, involving the author’s own experiences as well as upon the experiences of other scholars whose names will not be noted in this chapter. I argue that there is a need for greater attention and caution in general in the post-interview, prepublication stages. There is also potentially a greater need for consideration of ethical obligations beyond those owed directly to one’s interlocutors, which may include research assistants and other collaborators as well as interviewees, to individuals such as their relatives and colleagues with whom one may have had no direct contact.