Perhaps this approaches timorous irresponsibility. Yet my companion's general argument has undoubted merit. The opinions we express in public often differ from those vouchsafed under the cloak of secrecy. Within science, this disparity is said to justify anonymity in the refereeing of both research papers and grant applications. Peer review is designed to harness the critical faculties of scholars, distanced from personal likes or dislikes by the guarantee of confidentiality.
In practice, such idealism is often unattainable. Every journal editor can recount many stories of ideas stolen and old scores settled by reviewers, and of the frantic efforts of would-be authors to identify referees who have allegedly killed stone dead their chances of winning next year's Nobel Prize. In the realm of funding, where the stakes are even higher, there are corresponding charges of malfeasance and occasional suspicions of corruption. In short: although peer review can, and sometimes does, work ...
