You probably won’t be surprised to hear that I prefer the anonymous form of peer review. It allows the possibility that a reviewer could say what they might not say if their identity were known. People say different things in different contexts: in a bar to a friend; in a writing group (where they are supposed to be helpful); in a tenure or promotion letter; and to a press. A lot of what might only be said anonymously turns out to be very valuable to the success of a manuscript. Anonymity might only make this different some of the time — when the reviewer suspects their advice may not be a welcome message — but the preserving the space for that advice is a key part of the process.

The other valuable part — easy to overlook — is reception. I find that when authors know the identity of the reader they move quickly to explain away good advice, using what they know about the reader to narrate the concern as the difference between the reader’s work and their own (as if no one could appreciate work different than their own). In the same case, with feedback from an anonymous “Reader #1” an author is more frequently forced to come to terms with what is or isn’t working in their own prose. Occasionally, I think “if this person knew who was giving this advice, they would just take it” but more often I think the work is more improved by the reviewers being anonymous. A writing group, like a wiki, can really improve a piece of writing, but feels different than peer review, in the way (and I hesitate over this analogy, but kind of think it’s right) that advice from friends might be helpful in a tough situation, but is different than therapy.

Ken