Editor—With reference to the news item by White,1 peer review may be necessary, but it is open to bias and abuse, especially when referees are anonymous. To shelter under a cloak of anonymity is cowardly, and it is surprising that the editors of many eminent journals still permit this practice. Anonymous letters should be ignored and placed in the wastepaper basket where they belong.
Honest authors should not resent constructive criticism. Indeed they should welcome it as they will often learn much to their advantage. Discussion is the breath of life to research, but the manner in which anonymous “experts” sometimes express their opinions could permanently discourage young researchers with real potential, especially as vicious and hurtful comments have to be endured without the opportunity to obtain an explanation. Furthermore, it is not unknown for original ideas to be purloined while turning down a paper. 
The carping critics of the arts, theatre, and literature have the honesty and dignity to sign their articles in the press and periodicals to which they contribute. Why should medicine, the greatest art of them all, appear to be so fearful of reprisal?
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.White C. Little evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer review. BMJ. 2003;326:241. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7383.241/a. . (1 February.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]