The case against blind refereeing

A More Constructive Case Against Blind Refereeing

Professional Transparency
Many journals now use blind refereeing, withholding author identities from reviewers. Although well-intentioned, this practice can inadvertently disadvantage authors, impede reviewers, and weaken the overall editorial process. I believe that journals should reconsider such policies, and that authors, reviewers, and editors can work together toward more balanced and transparent alternatives.

Professional Courtesy and Context
When I write a letter of recommendation, my signature is essential---it provides context and accountability. If it were removed, the letter would immediately lose meaning. The same is true of scholarly manuscripts. Authors take responsibility for their work, stand behind their results, and should not be hidden from view. Knowing who wrote a paper is part of understanding its background, its intellectual lineage, and its place within a broader research program. Scholarship is not served by masking this information.

When Blindness Leads to Misjudgment
Removing author identities can lead, quite unintentionally, to problematic or even comical situations. Consider a few possibilities:

A reviewer recommends rejection due to overlap with another paper---unaware that the two papers share the same author.
A reviewer writes a strongly negative report, not knowing that the author is the editor's close colleague, which creates a potential conflict the reviewer could have avoided.
A reviewer rejects a manuscript for dual submission, not realizing that two distinct groups are working independently on similar ideas.
A reviewer invests significant effort into a thorough, multi-day report, only to discover later that the author is the editor---an extremely rare but not impossible situation.

Such cases are exceptions, of course, but they illustrate how blind review can obscure essential context for ethical and accurate evaluation.

The Inevitability of Identification
In practice, discovering the authorship of a manuscript is often trivial. Search engines routinely index technical reports, preprints, and related manuscripts. A few distinctive keywords are usually enough to identify the authors within minutes. If reviewers can---and often must---reconstruct authorship for proper evaluation, the benefit of formal anonymity becomes questionable. A system that encourages detective work is probably not serving its purpose well.

Risks of Misattribution
A more serious concern is the potential for misrepresentation. If journals require anonymity, unscrupulous individuals could, in principle, appropriate posted technical reports, change the names, and submit them as their own. A vigilant reviewer might detect this, but not always. Transparent authorship significantly reduces the risk of such misconduct and promotes trust across the publication chain.

Respecting Reviewers
Reviewers are essential to the scholarly enterprise. They volunteer their time, receive little recognition, and are regularly asked to meet tight deadlines. Blind refereeing adds another layer of difficulty by removing helpful context that can guide a careful, efficient review. Knowing an author's track record can help reviewers focus their attention where it is most useful, and it can alert them to conflicts of interest that would otherwise remain hidden.

Constructive Steps Forward
Here are a few proposals that may help strengthen the reviewing process:

Recognize reviewers meaningfully---financially for commercial publishers, or through complimentary subscriptions, books, or conference fee waivers for scholarly societies.
Identify and encourage strong reviewers, helping them move toward editorial roles.
Provide reviewers with full author information, including links to prior work, to ensure proper contextual understanding.
Share manuscripts using simple, convenient methods (e.g., secure URLs).
Allow reviewers to submit reports in whatever format is most comfortable for them.
Avoid publishing lists of reviewers unless accompanied by meaningful acknowledgment.
Offer sincere thanks when paired with tangible forms of appreciation.

Closing Thoughts
Blind refereeing originated from good intentions: fairness, neutrality, and reduction of bias. Yet in practice it often obscures more than it protects. Transparent review, combined with thoughtful support for authors, reviewers, and editors alike, can better sustain the rigor and collegiality that define academic scholarship.