My Mom was stubborn about bottle feeding and I think the determination to do what’s right in her heart was the key. “Stubborn” could be translated to attentiveness leading to thriving children.

As a professional, you take your work seriously and I think anything outside open peer review seems overly abstract and disconnected from your efforts. My guess is you’ve searched your intentions for offering your work and are not up to some weird trickery. You present yourself as accountable so what’s the reason for shadowy figures to be rummaging around in your work? It doesn’t sound like scholarship to make unattributed remarks and, like Stephen Jaeger mentions in his blog, this supposedly unbiased process could as well “work against scholarship that runs against the grain of currently accepted ideas.”

We are beaten over the head daily on the desperate need for new outlooks. New interpretations that are honestly put forward are important in this, but do blind reviews encourage or just police the conversation?