Reading the ongoing correspondence in Eos, I would propose that the difficulty lies in the dual nature of the reviewing process. The first stage asks, is the work worth publishing? The second asks, is the paper as submitted worthy of the work done? The dilemma is that the requirements for anonymity are different for the two functions. Like most of the correspondents in Eos, I feel that the evaluation of the merit of the work must remain anonymous. Personally, I prefer it to be double blind, in which the author of the paper is not revealed, although it is often not hard to guess. That way I can give the material the fairest possible treatment.