> According to  the open access memo that I received, it will only 
> cost me $5000 to publish a  paper -- maybe no more than $1000 if 
> I pay annual membership dues, etc.

This assumes that the "Journals" continue as for-profit publishing
entities without ads, and that the primary distribution method for 
science will continue to involve the quaint process of painting toxic 
chemicals on compressed dead trees.  Both are very rash assumptions, 
and both are assumptions made in an attempt to preserve a business model 
that is becoming more and more outmoded.  Pre-prints are flying around 
the net at the same speed as peer-to-peer shared movies and music, and 
in both cases, the publishers think that they can somehow impose their 
will and preserve their profits on the backs of a group of people who 
find it easier to copy and distribute "content" with each passing year.
  
> And, there's still pressure to publish in conventional journals, first. 

I think it would be more accurate to say that there is pressure
to submit one's work to peer review, and have it "approved".
When universities and other employers of research labor realize that
they have a choice between blowing $5K of a slim budget to "publish" 
and setting up their own peer-review process, I think that the 
"Journals" will find the Universities themselves will become 
competitors, "publishing" online-only Journals.
 
> We have to pay to publish.

What prevents you from sending out your paper to those who you know
to be a good mix of peers, and publishing in ABJ (no payment required,
in fact, Joe will buy you a drink!) with a listing of the names and
titles of the peers who reviewed of the paper?  While this certainly
lacks the prestige of being published in "Nature", one needs to 
isolate the issue of "credibility" from "prestige" to be able to 
see how a brand name like "Nature" has no place in scientific discourse.
Such brand names may do more harm than good, given that a paper reviewed 
by the same set of people can seem more or less "credible" depending upon
where it gets published, when it is merely more prestigious.

As far as "anonymous peer review" goes, that's trivial.  Any geek
over the age of 12 can set up an e-mail server that masks return 
addresses and header information.  In fact, your field is so small
that mere wording and syntax (if not specific arguments) can clearly
identify the writer, making the anonymity a sham.
 
The sound and fury over this issue is nothing more than the death
screams of the "science publishing" houses who refuse to admit that
publishing periodicals of any type, is an advertising-supported 
business, or it is not a business at all.

***********************************************************************************
* BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany.                  *
* Please fill out the Colony Collapse Disorder survey at http://www.beesurvey.com *
***********************************************************************************