2013 advisory committee of JTH

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYbRUW6lG_9qk_3f_81zlBXZ9qL_w3g1T_HDUnfaP81FoEKjxOI just got an email asking whether I would like to join the advisory committee of the JTH for the year of 2013. What a surprise! The text in the email reads:

[…]Our Advisory Board is composed of our most active reviewers and we expect members to review for us from time to time when papers fall within their expertise.[…]

I am truly honored with this invitation, and although I do not yet fully understand the difference between a regular reviewer and a member of the advisory board, I am really enthusiastic to help the journal to reach for and maintain the high academic standard of their articles. Recently, I’ve been wondering about the peer review system: should we change it in order to help prevent publication bias / scientific misconduct? Should we open up the system and urge reviewers to relinquish their anonymity like they ask at the PLoS journals?