publications - Is it unprofessional for a journal editor to be anonymous?

An editor of a journal asked me to review a paper but did not provide his/her name or institution, signing the e-mail as, essentially, "Editor of ...". The e-mail seems to be based upon a template. The sender's e-mail address is of the form AbbreviatedJournalName@PublisherName.com

The journal is reputable but not a top one. I cannot determine the editor's name from public online sources or private contacts. My best guess is that the name of the author of the e-mail is very likely to belong to the list of the editors advertised on the web page of the journal. I know nobody from this list personally through I've read and cited some of their papers.

1. 
   

   How should the editor's decision to stay anonymous be qualified? For example, was it

   
   
   
   
   • (un)ethical,
   
   
   
   • (un)professional,
   
   
   • (contrary to the) commonly accepted practice?
   
   
   
   


2. 
   

   What does this tell us about the editor or the journal?

   
   


3. 
   

   I would like to know whom I am speaking to before taking any decision. What would be the most appropriate reaction from my side, if any?

   
   

---

In another circumstance, the editor of a different, top-notch journal to which I submitted is unknown to me. I corresponded only with the chief editor, and I know that the manuscript is under review, but that's it.

4. 
   

   Is it

   
   
   
   
   • (un)profesional
   
   
   • (contrary to the) commonly accepted practice
   
   
   
   
   

   for the chief editor not to reveal to an author which editor was assigned to the author's submission?

   
   


5. 
   

   I would be happy to know who is the actual editor of my submission. Is it possible (and how) to ask for that such that the question is likely to be answered?

   
   

Answer

(Due to some rearrangement of comments, etc., I'm rewriting a comment as an answer... :)

First, yes, as noted by others, on many occasions such emails are software-generated... stimulated by an on-line submission, without other human intervention. So it's not that anyone is trying to avoid revealing their identity.

At the same time, nevertheless, I myself do not find machine-generated "invitations" adequately motivating in most circumstances to get me to do volunteer work. My viewpoint is that if no human being is willing to take the trouble to invest at least their identity and a few moments for a small email, then I needn't feel an obligation to invest my (identity, even as "anonymous" reviewer, and) time.

A feature that helped me move down this path was crappy automated interfaces... (won't name names)... which tried to coerce my referee reports into a format that misrepresented my comments... and on other occasions didn't like the browser I use, etc. In particular, when dealing with the interface was a lot more trouble than carefully reading the paper? And there was no one to email about it?

But this did start me thinking about the whole arrangement. Docile free refereeing for for-profit large corporate entities upon the command of software is not the way I want to go.