Established experts have a certain "weight"; if they decide to endorse a fringe or cutting-edge scientific view, that would be in many people's interest to know.
But if that same paper in support of a fringe theory is reviewed under an anonymous name, it might not get published, even if it's perfectly well-argued, simply because "the topic is fringe and not very relevant to our readers" (circular reasoning).
And even if it's not fringe, how we view an author may influence whether their paper passes peer review for perfectly legitimate reasons. If a random scientist is the 100th one to weigh in on any old debate (let's say Penrose-Lucas), it may get dismissed as non-notable. But Penrose giving his updated thoughts would be notable.
There's costs to anonymous peer reviews. Credibility and notability can't be fully detached from the author.
But if that same paper in support of a fringe theory is reviewed under an anonymous name, it might not get published, even if it's perfectly well-argued, simply because "the topic is fringe and not very relevant to our readers" (circular reasoning).
And even if it's not fringe, how we view an author may influence whether their paper passes peer review for perfectly legitimate reasons. If a random scientist is the 100th one to weigh in on any old debate (let's say Penrose-Lucas), it may get dismissed as non-notable. But Penrose giving his updated thoughts would be notable.
There's costs to anonymous peer reviews. Credibility and notability can't be fully detached from the author.