Scientific Peer Review Is Broken – Fighting to Fix It with Anonymity
Anonymity can't fix scientific peer review, it can only replace type I errors with type II errors.  Instead of suppressing criticism that ought not to be suppressed, anonymity can (and often does) fail to suppress criticism that really ought to be suppressed because it is in fact false and defamatory.  And indeed, what this article is really about is a lawsuit that alleges that this kind of error has in fact taken place.<p>Ironically, the very title of this article is a model of non-scientific thinking that ought to be subject to criticism, but attempts to inoculate itself against criticism by asserting that the subjects of the piece are protagonists "fighting to fix" a broken system.  They're not.  They're fighting to replace one broken system with a different broken system.<p>There is no question that scientific peer review is broken and needs to be fixed.  But anonymity is not the answer.  And holding anonymity up as something that should itself be beyond criticism is <i>certainly</i> not the answer.