Single- Versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature

A substantial scholarly literature regarding blind reviewing, which includes empirical studies for biomedicine, communication, computer science, economics, education, and many more are discussed. The arguments for double-blind reviewing are that it is fairer and it produces higher quality reviews. Peer review is the use of predetermined reviewers, in the case of program committees, or ad-hoc reviewers, in the case of reviewers for most journals, who individually read the submitted manuscript and prepare a written interview. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to other reviewers in most of the journals. The important point is that the term single-blind reviewing applies only to hiding the identity of the reviewer from the author. An argument for double-blind reviewing is that it is fairer to authors and thus, indirectly to readers.