In many communities, the problem with double-blind peer review is that it's pretty clear who the authors are, based on the exact line of research, writing style, et cetera. And in many cases, you can also guess who the reviewer is with some confidence. This means that double-blind is a nice feature for the "big guys" who dominate their communities to show how objectively strong their research is, although in fact oftentimes their friends review their work and know exactly who the authors are. Open peer reviews would at least make sure that there is some degree of accountability.
That's potentially true. However, I will say that as a reviewer for several double-blind journals, I've often thought "I totally know who is writing this..."
I've had a couple bad experiences with it, and vastly prefer double-blind.