Another reason why the referees of *accepted* books/articles should be made public

On this site we're having a spirited discussion about the merits of harsh reviews of books by junior scholars. Several commentators have suggested that publishers are the (at least partial) proper object of criticism of published works of inferior quality. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REFEREE(S)? These are left of the hook entirely. Yet, I have a very simple proposal (originally due to Alva Noe, I think) that should improve the referee process with little downside: accepted, refereed papers and books should be accompanied with the name of the referees and, ideally, their reports, if only, in the online edition. (Note rejections can still be done anonymously.) I have written about this before (in the context of plagiarism: http://www.newappsblog.com/2010/09/on-the-significance-of-a-recent-high-profile-case-of-plagiarism-and-what-we-can-do-about-it.html).

I hope this will have four positive consequences:

1. People can get credit (including for tenure and grants) for work done and this should increase number of responsive referees. Given the increased reliance on objective performance metrics (and the ongoing, general expansion of higher education in the world with Brazilian and Chinese universities soon sporting there own research orientation), there is an avelange of papers joining the refereeing pipeline.  This alone is putting stress on the system. The most likely referees are being overwhelmed with requests. (Short of charging submission fees and paying referees, this is probably best way to improve the system.)
2. It should increase transparency about intellectual networks. Small groups of incrowds have a tendency (perhaps unconsciously) to favor work done by friends or that cites them.
3. With publicity becoming the norm referees have an incentive to do diligent work, that is, try to catch plagiarism, make sure that relevant scholarship is cited, objections are raised, etc.

4. It makes the role and choices of of the editor subject of more careful scrutinity. Now they often appear as a neutral clearinghouse--but in their choice of referees and their interpretations of them they have considerable leeway.

Right now refereeing is organized like a secret priestcraft. The underlying message is, 'trust us.' But this will not do anymore. We should not give up on expert review, and we should promote the gift-giving culture that is a quickly vanishing within academia. Some mild transparency may actually go a long way here.