On Twitter, Jonathan Dresner pointed out this interesting bit of academic roguery: fictional peer reviewers for articles in the Elsevier science journals. Fake accounts enabled scientists to either review themselves or divert their articles to an unknown bogus reviewer. (Strictly speaking, this had been reported earlier in the CoHE, but only behind their paywall. See Retraction Watch's "faked emails" archive for more background.) The system described here doesn't match up with humanities procedure, where the journal editor tracks down a reviewer, rather than calling on a (potentially fake) volunteer with a pre-existing account. And I suspect most humanities scholars only wish they could suggest reviewers for their articles, although such suggestions are SOP for book mss. However, ghosting does raise potential issues--not for double-blind peer review of the traditional sort, but for its crowdsourced, "open" equivalent. It would be easy enough for an author to don a lot of socks, and not of the cotton variety.