Understanding double-anonymous peer review

What does double-anonymous peer review mean in academic publishing?

Double-anonymous peer review, sometimes called double-blind or double-masked peer review, hides the identities of authors and reviewers from each other. Reviewers don’t know who wrote the paper they’re reviewing, and authors don’t know the identities of their reviewers.  

Traditionally, most academic science publishing is single-anonymous: reviewers know the identity of the author, but authors don’t know the identity of their reviewers. 

Why do journals use double-anonymous peer review?

While peer review is intended to be about assessing the quality of a paper only, reviewers may have biases, whether consciously or not. By hiding the author’s identity from reviewers, journals reduce opportunities for bias. It prevents reviewers from making assumptions about the author’s gender or ethnicity. Reviewers can’t search the author by name, find their institutional affiliation, or determine whether they’re an established or an early-career researcher. These are all factors which could potentially lead a reviewer to be more or less favourable in their review.  

Training for reviewers can help mitigate bias, but unconscious biases can be tricky to neutralize. Reviewers themselves may be entirely unaware that they read papers written by small college faculty more critically than they would read the paper of a Ivy League faculty member.  

Dr. Jennifer Provencher, an adjunct research professor at Carleton University and the co-author of a recent paper analyzing various peer review models, has experienced this kind of unconscious bias first-hand. “I’ve sat in review systems where a grant isn’t particularly well-written, but people say, ‘Oh, but it’s so-and-so — I’m sure the science is good.’ And that’s not how it should work.” 

Competition between labs or institutions can also lead to bias in reviews. While science aims to be objective, researchers are human, and spurred by competition, a reviewer might be less favourable in their review of a rival (or leave a snippy comment or two). “The tension between groups can be high… A double-blind system is a step toward focusing on the research rather than rivalries,” Provencher explains.  

And, unfortunately, biased reviews can be hard to spot, even to a trained eye. As Dr. Karen Anderson, the Editor-in-Chief of Drone Systems and Applications, explains, “These kinds of biases are hard to spot as an editor-in-chief, and can be difficult for handling editors on the associate board to take into account because they may manifest in so many diverse ways.”   

Double-anonymized review helps reduce the opportunity for unconscious bias, furthering equity. Dr. Anderson’s journal, Drone Systems and Applications, is transitioning to double-anonymous peer review for that reason. “It seems to me that any process that has the potential to reduce unconscious or other biases in peer review will improve equality for authors,” she says. “And that’s a good thing to try.”  

Challenges of double-anonymous review

Double-anonymous review isn’t always simple to carry out. There are a few common concerns. 

One is that extra work is involved. Authors must carefully prepare their manuscript to remove identifying details, and editors need to check that nothing was missed before sending the paper out for review.  

Another issue is that true anonymity isn’t always guaranteed. In small or specialized fields, reviewers can sometimes guess who the authors are based on the topic, writing style, or references. If an author has already posted their article as a preprint with their name attached, it’s possible that a reviewer could find the article and identify the author.  

Double-anonymity isn’t perfect, but it may be a better solution than single-anonymity, especially combined with editorial oversight. David Castle is a professor and Researcher in Residence at the Office of the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada. As he says, “Double-anonymous review is meant to free up reviewers from contextual factors that might otherwise bias their review of submissions. That’s the goal, but at the same time bias can creep in, and reviews are not all uniformly well done. Editors, consequently, play a crucial role in assessing the quality of the reviews, and expressing to authors how they interpret the review.”  

What’s the difference between double anonymous peer review and open peer review?

Double-anonymous peer review maintains anonymity for reviewers and authors. In contrast, open peer review provides full transparency, revealing reviewer identities to the public (open review) and, in some cases, the reviews as well (open reports). There’s some evidence that open review leads to higher quality reviews, perhaps because reviewers know that their reviews will be linked to their name.  

However, open review isn’t without complications. Revealing reviewer identities may introduce new biases for reviewers in more vulnerable positions, such as early career researchers or those from underrepresented backgrounds. Reviewers with a more tenuous position… may be less critical because they fear reprisal from the scientific community,” As Kathryn Peiman, a researcher and co-author of “A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections” warns. This could “reduce their willingness to participate in open reviews, thus reducing the diversity of reviewer perspectives.” This lack of diversity risks reinforcing existing biases, rather than correcting them. 

Ultimately, peer review isn’t one-size-fits-all, and the best review model for a journal depends on the needs of its journal community.

Peer review models can influence reviewer participation

The peer-review model can be an important consideration when choosing which journals you want to review for. “I’ve chosen whether or not to be a reviewer based on the review model,” Dr. Provencher explains. “Early in my career, I was in a position at least once or twice where I was asked to review a paper by, or co-authored by, very senior researchers in my field. I read the title and abstract, and saw that the review process was open (reviewer names would be published) and I thought, ‘Nah, I’m good. I don’t need to do this. At the time, I didn’t want to be known as the one who approved (or didn’t approve) their paper. As an early career researcher, I was afraid that the benefit of reviewing wouldn’t outweigh the potentially negative career consequences.”  

If you’ve been asked to review but you aren’t sure what review model is being used, ask the editorial team. They’ll be happy to give you more information about the review process.  

How to review for a double-anonymous journal: Tips for peer reviewers

No matter the review model, Dr. Peiman recommends reviewer training. “Researchers can improve their own peer reviews by seeking out training in how to reduce their biases. There are more and more resources available that offer this type of training,” she explains. 

Some publishers, like Canadian Science Publishing, offer free resources and trainings for peer reviewers. These sessions often aim to reduce bias, as well as teach useful tips and strategies for reviewing quickly and effectively. These sessions can help you sharpen your review skills and become comfortable with the process, so that you can start reviewing and contributing to your field with confidence.  

Here are some tips to keep in mind when reviewing anonymously:  

1. Omit identifying information: Don’t include any information in your reviewer report that could reveal your identity. Remember not to sign your report!  
2. Avoid speculation: Don’t try to uncover the author’s identities. 
3. Use neutral language: Focus on the content of the paper itself as much as possible. If you need to mention the author(s), refer to them as “the author” or “the authors.”   
4. Communicate with the editor: If you have concerns about the review process or suspect a conflict of interest, communicate with the editor.  

How to prepare a manuscript for double-anonymous peer review: Tips for authors

Submitting to a journal with a double-anonymous peer review model means taking extra care to remove identifying information from your manuscript. Here are some helpful strategies to maintain anonymity while ensuring your work remains clear and well-supported: 

1. Remove names and affiliations: Omit author names, institutional affiliations, and contact details from the manuscript itself. Follow the journal’s instructions on whether to include names and affiliations on a title page or submission form.
2. Avoid self-citations that reveal your identity: When citing your own work, use neutral phrases like “prior research has shown…” instead of “our previous study…” You can still cite your work — just avoid language that makes it obvious that it’s yours.
3. Use anonymous file names: Save your manuscript with a generic file name like “submission.docx” rather than one like “Smith_etal_finaldraft.docx.”
4. Check before acknowledging: If you need to include funding or acknowledgments, check the journal’s policy. Some journals ask authors to add this information only after peer review.
5. Don’t refer to your preprints: If your manuscript builds on a publicly posted preprint, avoid referencing it in a way that clearly links your identity to the current submission. Check journal policy on whether to anonymize your citations or include them elsewhere.
6. Ask a colleague for help: Have someone unfamiliar with your work read the manuscript and flag any remaining clues that might reveal your identity. 

Case study: Why one journal transitioned to double-anonymous peer review

Drone Systems and Applications is a journal that’s making the transition from single-to double-anonymous peer review. For Karen Anderson, co-Editor-in-Chief, the decision to transition was a simple one. Studies have shown that the model can lead to less bias, and anything that leads to fairer science is worth implementing. “The goal is quite simply to trial something that might lead to more equitable outcomes for authors from anywhere in the world. Drone Systems and Applications is a global journal and we have a strong commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. In 2022 we changed the name of the journal to a more gender-neutral title, taking a stance on the importance of inclusive nomenclature in our discipline. There is no evidence that double-blind peer-review has potential to do harm, so we want to try it. We hope that… it will result in more equitable outcomes for all authors submitting papers to us.”  

In 2-3 years, the journal will evaluate the extent to which the double-anonymous process has changed outcomes and will share the results transparently in a report in 2028.  

You can follow along with Drone Systems and Applications on Bluesky or LinkedIn.