What about the possibility of double-blind review? I have actually wondered why the reviewers should be given the author info--does that determine the quality of the work? Am I missing some obvious reason why reviewers should know who the authors are?
I've always felt (and advocated long time ago on Usenet) that the current review system gets everything exactly backwards. 1) To prevent hatchet jobs of a review, reviewers should not be anonymous. 2) To prevent systematic bias by things completely irrelevant to the review job, reviewers (and handling editors!) should not be given authors' names and institutions.
I think that the moment #1 happens, each review will start taking much, much longer time than it is now. This means that either a lot less would ever be reviewed and published or -oh horror- postdocs and graduate students would need to be reviewers, too. IMHO, both outcomes are perfectly acceptable.
#2 is difficult in practice because self-references and all kind of hints can always be planted to make sure everyone knows the names. But maybe if such advertisements are frowed upon by the community, their incidence will be low enough to be a problem?
-- Dima
