What is Blind Review?
Blind review is peer review in which identities are hidden. The term is used for both single-blind and double-blind review; this entry focuses on single-blind review: reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not know who reviewed their paper. Many publishers now say "anonymised" or "anonymous" review instead of "blind".
Single-Blind, Double-Blind and Triple-Blind Review
- Single-blind (single-anonymous): reviewers anonymous, authors known. Still the most common model in the sciences.
- Double-blind (double-anonymous): reviewers and authors both anonymous. Common in the humanities and social sciences.
- Triple-blind: the editor does not know the authors either.
- Open review: no anonymity; identities, and sometimes reports, are public.
Advantages of Single-Blind Review
- Reviewers can criticise freely without fear of consequences from senior authors.
- Reviewers can check whether authors' previous work is relevant or overlaps.
- It is easy to run: authors do not need to anonymise their manuscripts.
Limitations
- Bias: knowing the authors can influence judgement. In a study published in PNAS (Tomkins, Zhang and Heavlin, 2017), single-blind reviewers at a computer science conference were more likely to favour papers from famous authors and top institutions than double-blind reviewers were.
- Accountability: anonymous reviewers can be careless or harsh without consequences.
What It Means for Authors
- Check which model the journal uses in its submission guidelines; for single-blind review, you do not need to remove your name.
- Respond to reviewers professionally, point by point, even when you cannot know who they are (see revision request).
- If you suspect a conflict of interest, tell the editor rather than the reviewer.
Use case: AI writing tools for researchers