Judging by the considerable and varied response it generated, the letter by Myrl Beck in the 1 July 2003 issue calling for signed reviews touched a sensitive point with many AGU members. As succinctly noted by Joseph Walder (Eos, 23 September 2003), all of the evidence cited for abuse of the review process is anecdotal. Yet,the shear volume and variety of the responses was surprising, at least to me. This suggests there are some broad editorial issues that appropriate AGU oversight committees might address. To further this, I offer my perspective as a former editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans and Atmospheres) and Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, and as current editor of the International Journal of Engineering Science.