in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean reviewers feel fine in placing tons of trust in the editors and
their helphands who organize the review not to tell authors who was their most brilliant reviewer?

Yes, that is my experience. In fact, I have never seen the editor revealing the reviewer's identity.

I'll note that the discussions in this thread remain "abstract" insofar as they focus on journals and editing procedures in general -- not on the specific affordances and workflows associated with wikis, or the specific needs and interests of wikistas. This isn't to say that such discussions are unimportant -- but in order to be make them somewhat more exciting (!) I think it would be good to put aside the frame of "previous experience" and return to the question:

what are we aiming for exactly?

(Because: I think it's actually something very new.)

If the question is only "how to set up a journal" then I wonder if this should be taking place off-list, since that's not really a "wiki research" question. If it is a question about "how to set up a journal that specifically meshes with the socio-technical patterns used by wiki communities", then of course it is appropriate for discussion here. (And obviously I think it's the latter!)

This point from Claudia is important -- Ťkeep in mind that we are not talking about a traditional journal here but about "a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"ť -- however, I think it needs expansion, or we'll just end up with some kind of turn-crank solution.

To reframe that:

What's NOT going to be traditional about this journal?