Should post-publication peer review be anonymous?

The argument about the utility (NOT the value) of anonymous versus signed comments could easily be put to the test by inviting people to sign if they wish/or not and see how many choose the option. Of course PubPeer commentators can, surely, include their name in the comment anyway. The value of the enterprise simple cannot be gauged at this stage; it is too early. We need to wait to see how many retractions, errata and corrigenda can be attributed to PubPeer or, at the sharp end, how many lives saved, for example, in medical research. However it operates and how effective it is, the procedure of not going to journal editors with queries about articles is not what the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends and the editors of most journals are signed up to COPE. If I saw an anonymous comment about an article in my journal (Journal of Advanced Nursing) on PubPeer I would be less inclined to act than if someone had followed the COPE guidance. As it stands there are comments on two articles in my journal on PubPeer: the oldest single comment takes you to a blog on the issue discussed in the paper - someone drawing attention to their blog and, therefore, once at the blog, not anonymous. As for the second set of comments, one is a warning about some of the literature in the field of the article and the other seems to be the search strategy cut and pasted from a paper - but not sure if it is the one in my journal (not checked yet as that is not the point) and, while it is clear which comment was posted first (the search strategy), it is not clear what point it is trying to make or how the second post addresses that point. So, not sure what value this is to anyone.

The Introduction to this exchange references the editorial by Michael Blatt stating that contributions to PubPeer 'often lacked “courtesy and common sense”. ' That editorial, in my opinion, lacked courtesy. But the editor-in-chief of a respected journal, with a named professorship, is not likely to face significant consequences for his lack of courtesy. Those of use lower in status who publicly criticize (however politely and reasonably) the science of those high in status, do fear significant consequences. We fear that we might face reprisals in reviews of our applications for grants and fellowships, or of our manuscript submissions. I suspect that many of those who are high in status do not understand how others react to them.

On pitfalls of anonymity: I am independent science journalist and have recently blogged about the anonymity of post-publication peer review (PPPR). There, I present two real-life examples on 1) how anonymous PPPR can be abused 2) how signed PPPR can achieve results in correcting scientific literature. Your comments are welcome: https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/post-publication-peer-review-signed-or-anonymous/