>I would have been inclined to simply accept this paper with minor revisions so that the PI did not have any impression I was being unreasonable. The impressio

>I would have been inclined to simply accept this paper with minor revisions so that the PI did not have any impression I was being unreasonable. The impression I get is that this article is about the fact that despite your connections with the author and team, various pressures of the review process (and probably timelines) prevented you from saying to the principle author in private, "Hey buddy, your work looks promising, but your graduate student really needs an editor." I find that review of the form "this is good, but needs cleanup" is the easiest to give or to receive in the type of reviews I participate in. If you can't even attach your name to that, I'm inclined to believe there are problems with the system that anonymity alone doesn't solve.