Thanks for addressing the ID issue.
On the editor / review issue, there are several reasons: one is that it is increasingly difficult to get people to peer review and when there have been multiple refusals and time presses, sometimes an editor will review a piece in order to get the thing done. This happens in every journal whether editors will admit to it or not. It’s not something any of us would want in an ideal world, we discourage it, and it’s not that common, but that’s the reality of the situation.
In any case, 1. OJS is not purely a blind peer-review system and never has been - the current options are ‘double-blind’, ‘blind’ and ‘open’ ( see the Review section of the Workflow setup), plus the previous versions allowed significant flexibility; 2. I am not sure that OJS should try to build in morality as any particulr developer sees it, the software should do what users need; and 3. the previous categories made sense, it was just that the way the user interfaced with the categories that were problematic (having to decide to use the system as one or the other from the user home).
In conclusion, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be possible to split the reviewer and editor views in the current system even if they appear on the same page, just as the ‘My Assigned’ and ‘My Authored’ sections are separate. What I am asking for is the ‘My Assigned’ section to be split into 2, i.e. ‘My Reviewing’ and ‘My Editing’ (or similar).
All the best,