folks,

i have not contributed to this thread because i am overloaded with
obligations but want to add my view on this.

i think it is a mistake to consider the issue of pronoun use a mere
stylistic issue.  the royal "we" as in "we the crown decided (for you)" is
intended to make dissension difficult: a modern example would be the ceo
concluding: "we all are in agreement on this, aren't we?" -- silence. 

the first person pronoun I denotes the speaker, the author, and the WE when
there are more than one.  using I enables the reader to know who is
accountable for what was done or is said.   ignoring first person pronouns
when an action is reported, a choice is behind what is stated or a claim is
made leaves open who is accountable for it and this is a linguistic game to
avoid accountability and claim unquestionable truths. i do not think there
are unquestionable truths and i am opposing this stance.

making it difficult to be accountability is a practice in science writing
relative to which i believe chris rust started this threat.  to claim
objectivity means hiding one's contribution to an argument or report.  it
suggest that reality spoke through its data, not I/WE.  when reality speaks
what it says becomes undeniable, unquestionable, and the reader is expected
to accept what is said as factual accounts.  i think we should rule out the
devious practice of using that linguistic trick (of disclaiming
accountability by not using personal pronouns) to invoke objectivity when
one is responsible for what is written.

my suggestion is to use I/WE when we report what we did, thought, or brought
forth. 
we do not use third person pronouns IT/THEY when we quote others or report
on measurements, data or theories attributable to others.

accordingly, we should refrain from saying "it was found" when it is we who
were the ones who did the analysis.
we should not say the definition of X is Y when it is we who either define X
as Y or select that definition among other definitions published elsewhere.
we should not claim knowledge to be in books when we are the ones who have
read them with gain -- knowledge is embodied in a reader or actor
etc.

as a reviewer, i would say the use of I and WE is not a mere stylistic
preference. it foregrounds or hides the author.  in judging the appropriate
use i would ask what truth games the author is playing with the reader when
not using first person pronouns for what the author should be held
accountable

on the issue of using full names for authors, there are style manuals, such
as apa, that rule it out. publishers like that because it saves a miniscule
amount of print space. when publishing in journals, i have found it
difficult to oppose their requirements.  when publishing larger works i have
always insisted on full names and succeeded. when asking for conference
papers those who write requests for proposals have the ability to ask for
references with author's full names.

klaus