Should editorial reviews be signed by the consultant? A reviewer recently returned his critique with these comments: "In accordance with my personal policy, it is my preference that my review be returned to the authors with my signature. It is my belief that unsigned reviews tend to be excessively critical and more biased and prejudiced because a reviewer may hide behind anonymity." I have received several requests of this nature in the past few months and it may be helpful to describe the current editorial policies of this periodical.
The proponents of disclosure contend that there is no place in science for anonymity. Commoner1 urges that reviews should not only be signed, but that they should be published. He suggests that such publication would convert the peer review process into an open dialogue that would contribute to the progress of science. Commoner contends that since the reviewers' mistakes are
Soffer A. Identification of ReviewersA Statement of Policy. Arch Intern Med. 1979;139(4):398. doi:10.1001/archinte.1979.03630410008005