Some people say double-blind reviews make things better since reviewers aren't (theoretically) influenced by the identity of the authors, and authors can't tail

Some people say double-blind reviews make things better since reviewers aren't (theoretically) influenced by the identity of the authors, and authors can't tailor their paper to suit the reviewers (or try to get back at them later for negative reviews). How about completely open reviewing, like in some of the BiomedCentral medical journals (e.g., http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed)? If done properly, all the cards are on the table. A paper cannot (should not) be rejected or accepted without legitimate reasons. Reviewers and authors can be made to account (through tarnished reputation and risk of embarrassment, at least) for their actions.