Single-Blind vs Double-Blind vs Open Peer Review
Peer-review models differ in who knows the identity of whom. In single-blind review, reviewers know the authors but authors do not know the reviewers; in double-blind, neither knows; in open review, identities (and sometimes reports) are disclosed.
Comparison
| Model | Who is anonymous | Potential benefits | Potential drawbacks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-blind | Reviewers | Reviewers can speak frankly | Possible bias based on authors' identity or institution |
| Double-blind | Authors and reviewers | May reduce some forms of bias | Authors may be identifiable; extra effort to anonymise |
| Open | None; reports sometimes published | Transparency, accountability | Reviewers may be reluctant to criticise; fewer agree to review |
| Transparent/published reports | Varies | Readers can see the review history | Needs reviewer consent |
| Post-publication | Varies | Wider scrutiny | No pre-publication filter if used alone |
What authors need to do
- Check the journal's policy in its instructions for authors.
- For double-blind review, remove identifying information from the main document (names, affiliations, self-identifying references, acknowledgements) and upload a separate title page.
- For open review, expect your identity, and sometimes the review history, to be visible.
Which is best?
Evidence on the effect of each model on quality and bias is mixed, and quality depends on editors and reviewers more than on the label. Choose journals by overall quality and fit, rather than only by review model.
Illustrative example
Invented for teaching. A journal requires double-blind review. The author removes names and the institutional ethics approval details from the main file, puts them in a separate title page and refers to her earlier work in the third person. The journal's system checks that the file is anonymised.
Common pitfalls
- Leaving author information in file metadata or acknowledgements.
- Assuming that any one model removes bias entirely.
Key takeaways
- The models differ in anonymity; check the journal's instructions.
- Prepare files accordingly.
References and further reading
Related reading
This page is general educational information about research methods. It is not medical, legal or regulatory advice; follow your institution's ethics board and your target journal's instructions.