Not once since 1979 an anonymous referee provided a comment that might help improve any of my papers in a way worth mentioning.
On some occasions papers were made worse by referees' intervention (as was the case with my last publication in Physical Review Letters).

And on other occasions the anonymous refereeing process was employed as an instrument of plagiarism, i.e. was used to torpedo my (and my colleagues) papers that gave account of indisputably original and breakthrough results***.

Therefore, unless forced by circumstances, I refuse to encourage the current practices of anonymous refereeing by submitting my papers to such an ignominious procedure.
Anyone willing to supply a comment for an arXiv'ed paper is welcome to do so -- by e-mail or via their blog (http://arxiv.org/help/trackback/).
Any comment or criticism that leads to an update of a paper, or to a development in a future publication, etc., will be properly acknowledged.

However, I have nothing against a journal publisher publishing my papers from the arXiv -- provided I am properly notified; constructive editorial suggestions may be considered.

Fyodor V. Tkachov [ftkachov * ms2.inr.ac.ru]
2011-04-05

***The case in point is the so-called Asymptotic Operation, with all the credit eventually appropriated in this particular case by Konstantin G. Chetyrkin and Vladimir A. Smirnov whom I will never hesitate to accuse of a systematic plagiarism: at the start of my career Chetyrkin was assigned to "supervise" my work, and was abusing his position by syphoning everything I was inventing to his friend Smirnov behind my back, while spreading libelous desinformation in the dominating groups. Thus a mechanism of plagiarism was established that operates to this day and keeps drawing in new people. It adversely affected the careers of some of my younger colleagues and essentially ruined mine.