Reviewers are likely to have a hard time shooting down the work of anyone they know personally, and in specialized sciences, the probability that a paper was written by a friend or former colleague of the reviewer is high enough to be a problem. On the other hand, credibility does matter; if an unestablished author observes something strange, it's likely that he's made a mistake, but an old hand making the same observation should not be ignored. Perhaps instead of a name, reviewers should be given an abstract indication of the author's credibility, such as the author's faculty title, or the number of times they've published before.