I don&#x27;t entirely agree with your arguments that anonymity would be a good thing. Or even that it&#x27;s sad that we can&#x27;t have it. Although I do agree that it&#x27;s helpful in some situations.<p>You say anonymity would prevent people pursuing science purely for fame. However first of all, science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in. And secondly, wanting to be recognised by your peers is not in and of itself bad, if it causes someone to pursue science then it might even be considered admirable.<p>I think discrimination against authors is a lot more worrying, but the situation is better than it once was since it is now no longer possible to prevent someone from publishing their work. If nobody would read it if they knew who the author was, or if it&#x27;s conclusion is so outrageous that it might damage the author&#x27;s reputation, it&#x27;s also possible to use a pseudonym.<p>I vehemently disagree that it&#x27;s a sad reality that we can&#x27;t have full anonymity. A scientific process that is completely anonymous is either unnecessary or if it&#x27;s necessary then that would be very <i>very</i> sad.