In the present scientific community anonymous referees decide which papers to be published.

Anonymous refereeing abets defamation. How could thousands, being fond of their struggle for truth, take part in a system that is explicitly irresponsible? Everyone who pronounces a negative judgement on somebody else must be ready to answer for it.

Sometimes it is argued anonymous referees might be useful for truth. One of the authors might be an influential person deciding on invitations to conferences or on prestigious positions. If such a person would find out who exactly wrote the negative report, the referee might become a victim of retaliation.

Cowardice and lies are always united. A person who does not dare to tell the truth in public will not do this incognito. Anonymity endorses sclerotic conceit and vengeances because of vanity ("Oh, they didn't cite me!"). Also one cannot assert that such lapses are rare since history contains many examples showing how difficult it was to publish papers which turned out afterwards to be the best.

Others argue that it is the editor who determines publication. The editor, however, is known to the authors. This argument does not hold because most editors plead overload, and thus they accept reports without verification.

It is known for centuries that anonymity is liable to abuse. Therefore there are no anonymous judges or witnesses in justice. Experts, too, are personally presented in trials.

By the way the dangers, which a critical referee undergoes, are trifle as compared to that what happens in courts. A judge, who sentences a violent ex to pay livelihood for his divorced wife, runs the risk to get shot down. Nevertheless the judge signs the decision.