Wow... I don’t see how this could possibly do any good.

Have a look: AIP article on a recent bit of legislation.

So, assuming I can read this correctly, the institution of any reviewer for each particular grant (or even just the applications?) will be publicly named. Even in a field the size of mine (x-ray scattering from hard condensed matter systems, it’s quite large by physics standards), this would provide absolutely no anonymity. Any grant I review will have RIT attached to it. There are 3-5 professors on campus that could broadly speaking review similar grants. But once you look at the particular sub-fields it will become very apparent who the individual is.

I wasn’t aware this particular aspect of peer-review was something that needed fixing. I’d prefer more double-blind reviews (where not only the referees are anonymous, but also the authors with only the editor knowing the people), but I see no reason we should be going the other way.

If this were to be enacted, I would have to fear both direct reprisal for me personally, as well as reprisal against the institute. That can be compounded into an Orwellian level of group think that must occur within departments, colleges, and ultimately beyond where a review must be “vetted” to make sure it does not conflict with any other interests or risk reprisal.