Sir

I work in a field, replicon dynamics in microbes, in which the cooperation-to-competition ratio is, I would guess, relatively high. Subject, technique, citation habits and writing style would subvert more than 80% of attempts to conceal author identity, just as authors guess referee identity correctly in about 50% of cases . I doubt whether double-blinding, as discussed in your Editorial 'Working double-blind' (Nature 451, 605–606; doi:10.1038/451605b 2008), would be worth doing in such a situation.

Is it really just at the journal–reviewer interface where reputation works most insidiously? One hears of big names stamping their foot over the telephone to intimidate editors into acceptance. Even if such tactics are occasionally tried, author–editor anonymity is too impracticable to consider as a corrective measure.