Double-Blind Peer Review: Implementation Guide for Editors
Reviewed by the NeucitePress Editorial Board — PhD academics, peer-reviewed journal editors and subject-matter specialists.
Last updated: October 2026 • Reviewed by the NeucitePress Editorial Board • Reading time: 7 minutes
In double-blind peer review the reviewers do not know who wrote the manuscript, and the authors do not know who reviewed it. Editors adopt it to reduce the influence of an author’s name, institution or country on the assessment. This guide explains what the evidence says, what the model costs in editorial effort, and how to run it without leaking identities.
Key takeaways
- Double-blind review removes a known source of bias, but it cannot guarantee anonymity. Reviewers can often guess authors in small fields or from preprints and self-citations.
- Evidence on the effect on diversity is mixed and contested; do not promise a specific outcome to authors or board.
- Most of the work falls on the editor: checking files, properties and wording for identifying information before review begins.
- Write the policy down: what authors must remove, what reviewers do if they recognise a manuscript, and when identities are revealed.
What the evidence says
In a controlled experiment at the WSDM 2017 conference, reviewers working under single-blind conditions were more likely to bid on and favour papers from famous authors, top universities and top companies than reviewers working under double-blind conditions (Tomkins, Zhang and Heavlin, PNAS 2017). That supports the case for blinding in competitive review settings.
The picture for gender is less settled. A 2008 analysis of the journal Behavioral Ecology reported a rise in the share of female first authors after the journal moved to double-blind review (Budden et al.), but a published reanalysis argued that the rise was consistent with a wider trend and not attributable to the change (Webb et al.). Treat claims of a specific diversity gain from blinding with caution.
Springer Nature examined the Nature-branded journals that offered authors a choice of model. Authors who chose double-blind review were more often from less prestigious institutions and from countries outside the leading research nations, and their manuscripts were less likely to be sent for review and accepted than single-blind submissions (McGillivray and De Ranieri, 2018). The study describes the pattern but cannot say why it occurs, which is why reporting your own outcomes by author group is useful.
What double-blind review costs you
- Editor time: every submission needs a check for names in the text, acknowledgements, file properties and tracked changes.
- Imperfect anonymity: self-citations in the first person, links to datasets, preprints and conference talks can identify authors.
- Reviewer selection: avoiding conflicts is harder when the editor sees the author but the reviewer does not.
- Policy clarity: authors need to know what is expected of them, and what the journal will do if a manuscript is not anonymised.
Double-blind review workflow
Setting up double-blind review
Instructions for authors
- Submit a main manuscript with no names, affiliations or acknowledgements, and a separate title page with all author details.
- Refer to your own earlier work in the third person, and cite it normally rather than replacing it with a placeholder where this would stop reviewers judging the context.
- Remove author names from file properties, figure files, supplementary files and tracked-change comments.
- Describe data and code in neutral terms or provide anonymised links.
- State whether the work has been posted as a preprint, since this can affect anonymity.
Instructions for reviewers
- Do not try to identify the authors, for example by searching for the title.
- If you think you recognise the authors, tell the editor and say whether you can still review impartially.
- Keep the manuscript confidential and do not share it or use it for personal gain.
- Declare any conflict of interest before accepting the invitation.
Checks for the editor
- Open each file the reviewer will see and check the document properties, headers and footers, and comment authors.
- Check the text for acknowledgements, ethics approval references and funding statements that reveal an institution; move them to the title page until after acceptance.
- Make sure the reviewer-facing files in your submission system do not display the author’s name in the file name.
- Confirm the review forms and decision letters do not reveal reviewer identities.
Common questions
What if a reviewer recognises the author?
Ask the reviewer to tell the editor. The editor then decides whether the recognition affects impartiality, and either keeps the reviewer with a note in the file or invites a replacement. Record the decision.
Is double-blind review suitable for every journal?
Not always. Fields where preprints are the norm, or where the number of research groups is very small, find anonymity hard to maintain. Whatever model you choose, state it in the author instructions so authors know what to expect.
Does double-blind review slow the process?
It adds an anonymisation check to the editorial workflow. How much time that takes depends on your submission system and how clearly authors are told what to do.
NeucitePress services for journal editors
Three services that take routine peer-review work off your editors. Your editors keep every decision.
A conflict-screened reviewer shortlist for each submission, approved by your editor, then invitations, reminders and replacements managed in your OJS workflow. Compatible with single-blind, double-blind and open review in OJS 3.x.
Each new submission is checked against your journal’s requirements for completeness, formatting, ethics and declarations before it reaches your editor, with a screening record kept in OJS. It is not peer review.
A 4-hour live virtual workshop for up to 15 editors, board members and reviewers, with a reviewer segment on confidentiality and conflicts, and a 1-hour follow-up Q&A.
Sources
- Tomkins, Zhang and Heavlin, Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review, PNAS (2017)
- Budden et al., Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors, Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2008)
- Webb, O’Hara and Freckleton, Does double-blind review benefit female authors?, Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2008)
- McGillivray and De Ranieri, Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics, Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018)
- COPE, Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
- ICMJE, Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
