Dr. McDuffie's description of his experience as reviewer and editor adds usefully to the debate on the evolving issue of blinding in peer review. There is little doubt that reviewers contribute substantially to the intellectual work of published studies and that, for the most part, their work remains "unhonored and unsung." My predecessors in the editorship of Annals, Robert and Suzanne Fletcher, began the important tradition of writing personal letters of thanks to the 30% of reviewers each year whose reviews were top rated by our associate editors. We have continued this tradition, and every year we receive a good many replies from these reviewers. Many of them tell us that no one has ever thanked them before for their efforts and that they appreciate knowing that their work has made a difference.

All of this rethinking of peer review has led us to consider the possibility of publishing with each paper in Annals the names of the reviewers for that paper (with the reviewers' permission, of course). I continue to believe that it makes for better and more appropriate critical review not to reveal reviewers' identity to authors during the review and editorial process unless the reviewers explicitly choose to be identified. At the time of publication, however, it seems only right and proper for reviewers to receive the public recognition, in print, that is their due. What do others think?