The recent letters to Eos concerning whether journal manuscript reviews should be anonymous or not has us thinking about another important and fixable problem concerning peer reviewc the lack of opportunity to rebut incorrect comments made in the review of proposals. Review comments that are incorrect and overly negative are common (much more so than comments that are incorrect and overly positive) and detrimental to authors but at least, for journal manuscripts, authors can write point-by-point responses to reviewer comments and submit them with a revised manuscript. This can be a very effective means of addressing the problem and having a good paper accepted in spite of reviews with Incorrect and Overly Negative Statements (IONS). On the other hand, with proposals to funding agencies, this same opportunity generally does not exist (though we know of a program at USDA that allows authors to include up to one page of responses to previous review comments when a proposal is re-submitted). The common occurrence of IONS in review of proposals, and lack of good opportunity to rebut them, may lead to problems in award decisions. IONS in review can not be eliminated, but their role in award decisions can be reduced.