Any horror stories out their about reviewers who don't use Spellcheck?

The biggest problem with reviewers --by far --is them not actually doing the review, or getting around to it after being chased four times.

A fairly well known scholar in my field always identifies his reviews and insists the identification remain with the review. He believes it leads to a more honest, thoughtful and conscientious review. Frankly I think he is right, and I can't really see a downside to identifying yourself. Sure, academia is full of fragile egos, but it seems to me that anonymity is a often a shield for poor work.

On the other hand, submitted papers should be kept anonymous to avoid favoritism (or its oppisite).

If a reviewer wants, googling an article's title will often reveal the article posted on the author's website, where it was given at a conference, etc. Just another way things aren't as anon as they may appear.

"Collated"?!

Even less technical methods of anonymization are not foolproof. Some years ago, I was sent a referee's report from a Dutch journal which was a xerox of what the referee had sent them, with his signature whited out. All I had to do was turn it over and look at the back while holding it up to a bright light: the name was clearly visible.

I was also surprised to see the report refer to me by name. Strict double-blind refereeing seems to be a mostly Anglo-Saxon thing. At least in my field (Classics), continental journals often use single-blind refereeing or even let the editor pick and choose whichever submissions he likes.

Even before the web, double-blind refereeing was never foolproof. I once asked an eminent classicist who had devoted his entire career to one of the major Greek authors (Homer, Plato, Thucydides, Euripides, one of those guys) how often he knew the name of the supposedly anonymous authors he was reviewing. He said about 50% of the time. After twenty years spent cultivating the same corner of the classical garden, he knew the stylistic tics and ideological approaches of many of his colleagues well enough that he couldn't help knowing who he was reviewing a lot of the time, even when he hadn't seen previous versions of their work at conventions and such.

Conclusion: double-blind refereeing is good, but far from foolproof, and the system still depends on the basic fairness of the referees.