The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review

Abstract

This article examines the issue of the respective knowledge of authors and reviewers: is it fairer to judge a manuscript in the full light of day, or hidden away from prying eyes? Should one know everything about the authors of a manuscript, or nothing at all? In short, does the anonymity of the reviewers and/or authors guarantee or prevent an objective assessment? It looks at how these became central issues for scientific journals between 1950 and 1970. It then examine how, from the 1980s onwards, a certain number of categories became stabilized, such as the "single blind" and "double blind" and "open review", which lay down the options available to journals and learned societies.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.