I think the main issue here is the problem of bias in the scientific community. Anonymity is just one proposed solution. There could be others. We should remem

I think the main issue here is the problem of bias in the scientific community. Anonymity is just one proposed solution. There could be others. We should remember that there are three major forms of incentive in the scientific community : 1. Prestige (requires name) 2. Salary and grants (requires credentials, and hence names) 3. The joy of analysis and discovery (doesn't require names) (I might have missed some forms of incentives, but these seem to be the major ones to me.) Anonymity will take the top two incentives away. The second one is a very practical one. There's an existing competition for salary and grants, a pretty brutal one in some areas where money is scarce. We need to solve this problem first before the concept of anonymity can be realistically entertained. I have heard other proposals for reducing bias that seem more tangible. One of them is democratization (partially or fully) of peer review in a centralized publication system (like arxiv).