For the past four years I have made an effort to sign all my reviews (which I try to keep to about one a month). It isn’t because I believe in radical openness or something crazy like that. Its really just my self interest involved – at least mostly. Writing a review is an incredibly time consuming, and largely thankless task. Supposedly anonymous peer review is supposed to protect the reviewer, particularly the scenario of the less established scientist critiquing the work of the more established. I am sure it occasionally serves that purpose. On the other hand, that very scenario can be the most profitable time to sign a review. Really, when are you more likely to get an esteemed colleague to closely read your every argument than when you’re holding up their publication?
While the possibility of a vindictive and powerful author sounds daunting, but rather inconsistent with my impression of most scientists, who are more apt to be impressed by an intelligent even if flawed critique than by simple praise. I find it hardest to sign a review that I have found very little constructive criticism to offer, though after a decade of being trained to critique science one can always find something. (Of course signing can be hard on the occasional terrible paper for which it is hard to offer much constructive criticism, but fortunately that has been very rare). Both authors and other reviewers (who are sometimes sent the other reviews, a practice I find very educational as a reviewer) have on occasion commented or complemented me on reviews or acknowledged me in the papers, suggesting that the practice does indeed provide for some simple recognition. At times, it may sow seeds for future collaboration.
Signing my reviews has on occasion given the author a chance to follow up with me directly. While I’m not certain about journal policies in this regard, I suspect we can assume that we’re all adults capable of civil discussion. In any event, a phone call or even a few back-and-forth emails can be immensely more efficient in allowing an author to clarify elements that I have sometimes misunderstood or been unable to follow from the text, as well as making it easier to communicate my difficulties with the paper. In my experience this has resulted in both a faster and more satisfactory resolution to issues that have led to see some papers published more quickly and without as many tedious multiple rounds of revision. Given that many competitive journals simply cut off papers that might otherwise be successful with a bit more dialog between reviewer and author, because multiple “Revise and resubmits” put too much demand on editors, this seems like a desirable outcome for all involved. I’m not suggesting that such direct dialog is always desirable, but that no doubt many of us have been in the position in which a little dialog might have resolved issues more satisfactorily.