{"id":56901,"date":"2025-11-21T15:49:12","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T09:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/?p=56901"},"modified":"2026-05-08T09:16:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T09:16:09","slug":"double-blind-peer-review-anonymity-problems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/articles\/double-blind-peer-review-anonymity-problems\/","title":{"rendered":"Why double-blind peer review may not be as anonymous as you think: Implications for fairness and bias"},"content":{"rendered":"

A common assumption in academic publishing is that a double-blind peer review<\/a> process reliably hides author identities and so reduces bias. Yet evidence and recent experiments show that anonymization is imperfect: only a small fraction of authors chose double-blind review in a large publisher study, and reviewers or algorithms can often re-identify authors from manuscripts and metadata. This matters because imperfect anonymity can preserve or even obscure sources of bias, undermining fairness in editorial decisions. This article explains what double-blind review intends to do, how anonymity breaks down in practice, the consequences for fairness, and practical steps authors, reviewers, and editors can take. Key empirical findings and recommended actions follow.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\n<\/span><\/div>\n