In small fields, there is always a risk of a certain amount of non-blindness in so-called blind peer reviewing. As a rule, blind peer reviewers do their best to operate without assumptions about who's work is whose, and the editors do their best to match up papers with reviewers who are appropriate for the paper in question but who have the potential to be blind about the submitter. But in some fields, everybody knows that, Dr. X. is the only person working on, say, concealed questions as they appear in lolspeak, and that paper will never be truly blindly reviewed. The reviewers just do the most objective review they can.

That being said, keep in mind that the blind peer reviewers for the journal will be coming from a much larger pool of academics than the people in livejournal acafandom, so the obviousness of authorship maybe less clear than you fear.

ObDisclaimer: I am speaking here as an independent academic, not in my role for the journal. Both of the editors have spoken up already, and they are certainly the authoritative voice of speaking for the journal.