Dr. Davidoff's discussion of the pros and cons of anonymous peer review for manuscripts [1] reminded me of my own experience in this area. From the 1950s through the 1970s, when I was actively engaged in bench research, I was frequently asked to review scientific manuscripts. I put a lot of time and intellectual effort into these reviews, often going to the library and reading relevant references. I felt a certain disappointment that these efforts were not acknowledged except for the inclusion of my name in the annual list of reviewers. I know that some of these reviews were very helpful to the authors and resulted in major revisions. Also, as an investigator myself, I derived much benefit from reviews of my own contributions. In more than one instance, I went back to the bench and did additional experiments that buttressed and extended my observations. I regretted that I could not express my appreciation to the colleagues who had helped me.

Thus, when I became editor of the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine in 1976, I decided to invite our reviewers to sign their reviews. I did not insist on their doing so. Rather, I offered this privilege as an option, encouraging reviewers to comply. I assured them that they would not be subject to any direct contacts from the authors unless they desired it. It turned out that about 60% of reviewers complied with my request to sign reviews. I no longer have the data, but I know that reviews of eventually accepted manuscripts were signed more often than those that were turned down, although the difference was not great. Some of the authors wrote asking us to thank the critics. In two instances, I allowed direct contact between the author and the reviewer. Both times, the reviewer was actually added as a coauthor. Whether there was a conflict of interest here readers must decide for themselves.

Occasionally, reviewers would take an intermediate approach to the signing question by producing an obviously illegible signature so that they satisfied themselves without giving up their anonymity.

Once in a while the back and forth between the author and reviewer led to an impasse. In one instance, after a manuscript had been sent to a reviewer three times, he wrote: "Dear Dr. McDuffie, My power to resist is overcome. Let it pass."