Replication should be done more often, and anonymization may serve to catalyze such an increase. Peer review is supposed to examine a paper for flaws, and do s

Replication should be done more often, and anonymization may serve to catalyze such an increase. Peer review is supposed to examine a paper for flaws, and do so fairly for all authors. This determination of which papers are well thought-out and documented is then supposed to decide which are publishable. I think you are also tacitly describing a pessimistic view (which I share) of the reality of peer review, that it does not succeed in these lofty aims, and that publishability is influenced by a number of extraneous factors.