Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind Peer Review: Differences

Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing because it allows independent experts to evaluate research before publication. However, not all journals follow the same review process. Two of the most widely used approaches are single-blind and double-blind peer review.

The main difference between single-blind vs. double-blind peer review is whose identity remains hidden during manuscript evaluation.

In single-blind peer review, reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. In double-blind peer review, both the authors' and reviewers' identities are intended to remain concealed from one another.

Both systems aim to support objective manuscript evaluation, but they differ in their approaches to anonymity, transparency, and potential reviewer bias.

Understanding these differences can help researchers select appropriate journals, prepare manuscripts correctly, and navigate the publication process more confidently.

This guide explains how each model works, its advantages and disadvantages, practical examples, and which approach may be more suitable for different academic disciplines.

Single-blind peer review, also called single-anonymous peer review, is a manuscript evaluation process in which reviewers know the authors' identities, while authors do not know the reviewers' identities.

When a researcher submits a paper to a journal using this model, the manuscript generally includes the authors' names, affiliations, and other identifying information.

The journal editor selects qualified reviewers who assess the study's originality, methodology, findings, and academic contribution.

Reviewers submit their comments confidentially through the journal's editorial system.

The authors receive feedback without the reviewers' identities being disclosed, unless the journal has a specific policy allowing identification.

According to Taylor & Francis, single-anonymous peer review is particularly common in scientific and medical journals.

Example of Single-Blind Peer Review

Suppose a researcher from a US university submits a paper examining renewable energy integration.

The journal editor invites two specialists in electrical engineering to evaluate the manuscript.

Both reviewers can see the researcher's name, university affiliation, and publication history.

However, the author receives reviewer comments without learning the reviewers' identities.

The reviewers assess whether the mathematical models, experimental procedures, and conclusions meet appropriate scientific standards.

This is an example of single-blind peer review.

Double-blind peer review, also known as double-anonymous peer review, is a process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are intended to remain hidden from one another during evaluation.

Authors typically submit an anonymized manuscript that excludes identifying information.

The editor knows who submitted the research but arranges for reviewers to assess a version that does not directly identify the authors.

Reviewers provide comments without disclosing their identities to the authors.

This model aims to reduce the influence of factors such as author reputation, institutional affiliation, nationality, or career stage.

Double-anonymous review is particularly common in humanities and some social science journals, although it is also used in other disciplines.

Example of Double-Blind Peer Review

Consider a PhD student submitting a psychology research article to a journal using double-anonymous review.

The student prepares a manuscript without their name, university affiliation, or identifying acknowledgments.

The editor sends this anonymized version to external reviewers.

Reviewers assess the research methods, statistical analysis, and conclusions without being directly told whether the author is a graduate student or an established professor.

The student subsequently receives anonymous feedback.

Although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, the process is designed to reduce identity-related influences on evaluation.

Both models use independent experts to assess scholarly manuscripts.

Their primary distinction involves whether reviewers can identify the authors.

Feature	Single-blind peer review	Double-blind peer review
Authors' identities visible to reviewers	Yes	Intended to remain hidden
Reviewers' identities visible to authors	No	No
Manuscript anonymization	Usually not required	Usually required
Author affiliation visible	Generally yes	Usually removed from the review version
Potential for identity-related bias	Greater exposure to author information	Designed to reduce this exposure
Submission preparation	Generally simpler	Requires additional anonymization
Risk of identifying authors	Authors already identified	Identification may still occur
Common disciplines	Science and medicine	Humanities and some social sciences

Neither model automatically guarantees a fair or scientifically reliable review.

Their effectiveness depends on reviewer expertise, journal policies, editorial oversight, and professional ethics.

Single-anonymous reviewing has several practical benefits that help explain its continued use in scholarly publishing.

1. Encourages Candid Reviewer Feedback

Reviewer anonymity can help experts provide critical assessments without fearing direct professional retaliation from authors.

This may be particularly important when reviewing manuscripts written by influential or established researchers.

Reviewers can identify methodological weaknesses or unsupported conclusions while keeping their identities confidential.

2. Simplifies Manuscript Preparation

Authors generally do not need to remove their names, affiliations, or other identifying details.

This simplifies the submission process and reduces the risk of accidentally including identifying information in a file intended to be anonymous.

3. Provides Context About Previous Research

Knowing who conducted the research may help reviewers understand the relationship between a manuscript and an author's earlier publications.

This contextual information can be useful when assessing whether methods or results have previously been reported.

However, reviewers should evaluate the submitted evidence independently rather than relying on an author's professional reputation.

4. Facilitates Evaluation of Research Continuity

Some scientific studies build directly upon earlier work from the same research group.

Knowing the author's research history may make it easier to recognize that connection.

Nevertheless, the reviewer's responsibility remains the same: assess the scientific quality of the manuscript itself.

Despite its practical benefits, single-blind review has limitations.

1. Potential Reviewer Bias

Reviewers may be influenced by knowing the author's identity, institution, nationality, or academic reputation.

For example, a reviewer could evaluate research from a prestigious institution more favorably than comparable work from a lesser-known university.

Such bias may be conscious or unconscious.

2. Professional Conflicts

Researchers working in highly specialized fields may have professional rivalries or competing research interests.

Knowledge of an author's identity may influence an assessment, particularly when appropriate conflict-of-interest safeguards are not followed.

3. Limited Reviewer Accountability

Although reviewer anonymity may encourage honest feedback, it can also make it easier for some individuals to provide unnecessarily harsh or poorly justified comments.

Editors must therefore ensure that reviews remain professional, constructive, and evidence-based.

Double-anonymous peer review aims to reduce identity-related influences during manuscript evaluation.

1. Reduces Exposure to Author-Related Bias

Concealing author identities can limit the information available to reviewers about researchers' institutional affiliations, professional seniority, or reputations.

This may help reviewers concentrate more directly on the quality of the research.

For example, an early-career researcher may receive an assessment that is less influenced by assumptions about their experience.

However, anonymization does not eliminate all forms of reviewer bias.

2. Supports Fairer Evaluation Opportunities

A double-anonymous system is designed to provide researchers from different career stages and institutions with an evaluation process less directly influenced by their identities.

This can be particularly relevant for researchers who are concerned about reputational or institutional bias.

The extent to which anonymity improves fairness depends on how effectively identities remain concealed and how editors manage the review process.

3. Encourages Attention to Research Evidence

When reviewer access to author information is restricted, evaluation may focus more closely on methodology, data quality, originality, and interpretation.

These are the scientific characteristics on which publication decisions should primarily depend.

4. Provides Confidentiality for Both Participants

Double-anonymous review aims to protect the identities of both reviewers and authors from one another during evaluation.

This may help reduce some forms of interpersonal pressure or reputational influence.

Double-anonymous review is not without challenges.

1. Complete Anonymity Is Difficult

In specialized academic fields, reviewers may recognize authors through their research topics, previous publications, datasets, or conference presentations.

A manuscript discussing a highly distinctive project may effectively reveal its authors even when identifying details are removed.

Therefore, double-anonymous review generally represents an attempt to conceal identities rather than a guarantee of anonymity.

2. Requires Additional Manuscript Preparation

Authors must carefully remove identifying information from the review version.

This may include names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding statements, self-identifying language, and document metadata, depending on journal instructions.

Preparing anonymized files can require additional time.

3. May Complicate Research Transparency

Some studies depend on datasets, repositories, preregistrations, or public protocols that contain author information.

Authors may need special anonymous access links or other procedures to preserve reviewer access while reducing identifying details.

These requirements can create additional administrative work.

4. Does Not Eliminate Reviewer Misconduct

Even when both sides remain anonymous, a reviewer may still provide biased, dismissive, or insufficiently justified comments.

Strong editorial oversight and professional standards remain necessary.

Neither model is universally superior.

Single-blind peer review can simplify manuscript handling and allow reviewers to understand the author's previous research.

However, knowing an author's identity introduces opportunities for reputational or institutional bias.

Double-blind peer review aims to reduce some of these influences, but complete anonymity is difficult to maintain.

The most suitable model depends on the discipline, journal procedures, research characteristics, and editorial priorities.

For authors, choosing a reputable journal with clear editorial standards is generally more important than selecting a publication based solely on its anonymity model.

Researchers should examine the journal's peer-review policy and determine whether its process aligns with their expectations.

When submitting to a double-anonymous journal, authors must follow its instructions for removing identifying information.

A typical preparation process includes the following steps.

Step 1: Remove Names and Affiliations

Delete author names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, and other direct identifiers from the manuscript file intended for reviewers.

Journals may request a separate title page containing this information.

Step 2: Check Acknowledgments and Funding Details

Acknowledgments may identify research collaborators, institutions, laboratories, or funding arrangements.

Follow the journal's instructions about whether such information should be removed, anonymized, or provided separately.

Do not omit legally required disclosures from the submission system.

Step 3: Review Self-Citations

Self-citations should remain academically appropriate and necessary.

Avoid language that explicitly identifies the authors, such as "In our previous study at [institution], we demonstrated..."

Where appropriate, use neutral wording and follow the journal's specific citation policy.

Do not delete relevant references merely to conceal authorship.

Step 4: Examine Figures and Supplementary Files

Figures, photographs, ethics statements, appendices, and supplementary documents can contain identifying information.

Check institutional logos, laboratory names, and other details that may reveal authorship.

Step 5: Remove Identifying Document Metadata

Word documents and PDF files may contain author names or institutional information in their file properties.

Inspect these details before uploading the anonymized version.

Step 6: Check Research Data Links

Public repository records may reveal the authors' identities.

If the journal requires anonymous data access, use an appropriate private reviewer link or follow the publisher's data-sharing instructions.

Step 7: Review the Journal's Submission Checklist

Before submitting, verify that the anonymized manuscript meets the journal's requirements.

Taylor & Francis provides dedicated guidance on preparing manuscripts for double-anonymous peer review.

Requirements vary by publisher, so the journal's official instructions should always take priority.

Single-anonymous and double-anonymous review are not the only models used in scholarly publishing.

Open peer review is another approach, although its exact meaning varies among journals.

Review model	Author identity	Reviewer identity
Single-anonymous	Known to reviewer	Hidden from author
Double-anonymous	Intended to be hidden from reviewer	Hidden from author
Open identity review	Known to reviewer	Disclosed to author
Open reports review	Depends on journal	Reports are made public, sometimes with identities

Open peer review can include publishing review reports, identifying reviewers, or allowing more transparent exchanges between authors and reviewers.

Some journals combine elements of multiple systems.

Therefore, researchers should consult the journal's actual policy rather than assuming all open review arrangements follow one definition.

Double-anonymous peer review is designed to reduce certain forms of identity-related bias, but it cannot eliminate bias completely.

Reviewer judgments may still be influenced by disciplinary preferences, methodological assumptions, or familiarity with a particular research area.

Authors may also be identifiable through citations, public preprints, conference presentations, or distinctive study characteristics.

Editorial safeguards remain important regardless of the review model.

These include selecting qualified reviewers, requiring competing-interest disclosures, monitoring review quality, and ensuring that editorial decisions are supported by the evidence.

Anonymity is one mechanism for improving fairness, not a substitute for responsible editorial management.

Why Do Journals Use Different Peer Review Models?

Academic disciplines have different publication practices, research traditions, and expectations regarding transparency.

Science and medical journals commonly use single-anonymous review, while double-anonymous review is particularly established in parts of the humanities and social sciences.

Some publications also experiment with open review to increase transparency and accountability.

Journal editors consider factors such as reviewer independence, manuscript handling efficiency, author confidentiality, and disciplinary expectations when selecting a review model.

A journal's approach may evolve over time.

Authors should therefore verify its current review policy before submitting a manuscript.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between single-blind and double-blind peer review?

In single-blind peer review, reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know the reviewers. In double-blind peer review, both parties' identities are intended to remain hidden from one another.

Is double-blind peer review better than single-blind peer review?

Not necessarily. Double-blind review aims to reduce identity-related bias, while single-blind review can simplify manuscript handling. Both approaches have benefits and limitations.

Can reviewers identify authors during double-blind review?

Yes. Reviewers may infer author identities from research topics, previous publications, preprints, or conference presentations. Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed.

Why do journals use single-blind peer review?

Single-blind review can protect reviewers' identities and simplify submission procedures while allowing reviewers access to authorship information and research context.

What is another name for double-blind peer review?

Double-blind peer review is also called double-anonymous or double-anonymized peer review.

Does double-blind peer review reduce bias?

It is designed to reduce bias associated with author identity, reputation, institution, and other identifying characteristics. However, it does not eliminate all sources of bias.

Is open peer review the same as double-blind peer review?

No. Double-blind review aims to conceal author and reviewer identities from each other. Open peer review may disclose identities, publish reviewer reports, or use other transparency measures.

How do I know which peer review model a journal uses?

Visit the journal's official website and examine its aims and scope, editorial policies, or instructions for authors. These sections generally describe the review process.

Conclusion

Understanding single-blind vs. double-blind peer review is important for researchers preparing manuscripts and reviewers participating in scholarly publishing.

Single-blind peer review allows reviewers to know the authors' identities while protecting reviewer anonymity. Double-blind peer review attempts to conceal both parties' identities to reduce potential author-related bias.

Each model offers advantages and limitations involving fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and manuscript preparation.

Neither system guarantees that a manuscript will receive an unbiased or scientifically flawless assessment.

Ultimately, effective peer review depends on qualified experts, constructive feedback, ethical responsibilities, and responsible editorial oversight, regardless of the anonymity model used.