I recently commented on a similar discussion here about a month ago[1] to the effect that double blind review is a cheap and idealistic shortcut that runs into its own issues (research areas are simply too specific to pretend that we're operating "blind") and doesn't get you what you really need which is to address the deeper issues in the publication system and research system.
These issues? Off the top of my head:
1. Quantity over quality
2. Normalised sensationalising of ones research
3. Neglecting good or even necessary collective scientific practices such as replication studies and data and code sharing and openness.
a. Here, valuing the actual work of peer review comes in as a fundamental aspect of the scientific process that should be respected, rewarded and published rather than being some silent aristocratic duty that eventually gets navigated around in the sensationalism rat race many researchers pursue.
4. Selecting for "impact" and "novelty" and not the quality of a researcher's/scientist's administrative and leadership skills, scientific method and integrity and teaching skills (incl, importantly, the teaching of graduate students)
a. Though novelty and impact are important in research, IMO, they're outcomes that are hard/impossible to select for largely because research breakthroughs are often serendipitous and the kind of true genius that will "hit targets no one else can see" is rare and frankly everyone knows it when they see it (provided they're good researchers and not just good salespeople). A very senior academic once told me in a private context that you can't predict where the breakthroughs are going to come from as an inexperienced researcher playing around is just as likely to make a breakthrough as a senior researcher with many credentials.
5. A personal belief of mine ... resisting the necessary professionalisation of research, by which I mean that the conception of a researcher is based very much in the same model we had centuries ago. IE, a lone genius researcher left to their own devices to find the truth. Scientific research, at least, is now too complex, too hard and involved for this to be true. Collaboration and more and more specific roles are necessary to make the industry work well. The resistance of the "industry" to recognising the importance of software developers in research is a perfect example. Same goes for statisticians and consultants from adjacent fields. My personal favourite for such an "associative" role would be quasi-theoreticians (outside of physics) who can aid in aggregating, reviewing and critiquing the literature in real time without necessarily having a horse in the race.
~~~
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32832836