Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?

@article{Bazi2019PeerRS,
  title={Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?},
  author={Tony Bazi},
  journal={International Urogynecology Journal},
  year={2019},
  volume={31},
  pages={481-483}
}
  • T. Bazi
  • Published 9 December 2019
  • Psychology
  • International Urogynecology Journal
A scholarly peer review is the process whereby referees scrutinize research work or a manuscript within their field of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal or scientific proceeding. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many models of peer review, the single blind is currently the most adopted model in scientific journals. The double-blind model has been claimed to decrease bias, despite some difficulty in implementation. 
2 Citations
Moving to a double-blind review system.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 20 REFERENCES
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
TLDR
This study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference and shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.
Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality
TLDR
The authors’ results revealed no publication bias based on author identity at PRS and double-blinding adds considerable work for authors and editorial staff and has no positive effect on review quality.
Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi‐rater study
TLDR
This work states that manuscript reviews in which the reviewer is unblinded (e.g. knows author identity) may be biased, with an increased likelihood that the evaluation will not be strictly on scientific merits.
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
TLDR
Review quality was assessed by two editors and the corresponding author, and there was no significant difference in assessment between groups or between editors and authors.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
TLDR
Neither blinding reviewers to the authors and origin of the paper nor requiring them to sign their reports had any effect on rate of detection of errors, and such measures are unlikely to improve the quality of peer review reports.
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
TLDR
This study provides evidence of bias in the open review of abstracts, favoring authors from the United States, English-speaking countries outside theUnited States, and prestigious academic institutions, and blinded review at least partially reduced reviewer bias.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
TLDR
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews, and the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.
TLDR
This study described a prospective study on a nonclinical topic of broad interest (team training to improve communication and safety in the operating room), which was putatively written by 2 past presidents of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons from prominent institutions.
Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language.
TLDR
Experienced and young referees gave a stricter assessment of the manuscripts than their less experienced and older colleagues, and an English version seemed to be accepted more easily than a national-language version of the same manuscript.
...
...