The anonymity of the reviewers might be somewhat detrimental, but it might not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0399_197

I think the process being opaque is more detrimental, because there's no way for anyone outside of the process to know it happens. If it wasn't opaque, then everyone could see when it happens.

Not being able to engage in a debate about the merits of something is also sketchy. It seems like an order being dressed-up as peer feedback.