The person who wrote the article often almost always does not explicitly know the reviewer. It actually takes a ton of time to vet a paper to that level. You'd have to open up their data sets, which, by the way, often they're not provided. This is done mainly for purposes of figuring out who should have high status. Most places don't publish reviews because generally the reviews disappear forever once the paper is published.
Psychologist Adam Mastroianni says peer review has failed. Papers with major errors make it through the process. The ones without errors often fail to replicate. One approach to improve the process is better incentives. But Mastroianni argues that peer review isn't fixable. It's a failed experiment. Listen as he makes the case to EconTalk host Russ Roberts for a new approach to science and academic research.