1

This question already has an answer here:

After submitting a paper to a journal, the paper will be sent to a reviewer by editor in such a way the name of authors will be hidden for referee. In some cases in the list of references, sometimes there exists papers belong to authors which cite them by authors in the paper. In other words, it is not difficult to extract the name of authors from the reference list, isn't it? How can this issue be managed (in the case of importance of not-knowing the name of authors for referee)?

marked as duplicate by Bryan Krause, Buzz, user68958, Anyon, user3209815 Nov 28 '18 at 8:03

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • This is the sort of thing the author (not the editor) needs to fix before submitting to a journal using double blind review. The journal will have a policy on how this is to be done. – Tobias Kildetoft Nov 27 '18 at 12:57
  • I marked one possible duplicate, but what you are interested in general is "double blind review" as the answer you got points out; if you search on this stack for those terms you will find several previous questions similar to this one. – Bryan Krause Nov 27 '18 at 18:48
2

Many review processes are single-blind rather than double-blind (that is often the reviewer knows the identity of the authors but the authors don't know the identity of the reviewer).

One of the arguments in favor of single-blind review is precisely the one you outline: its almost impossible to hide the identity of authors, particularly if the field isn't so large, even if the names in the author list are blanked out (and how can you review a paper properly if you can see the references).

Single vs Double blind review is a topic of some controversy, with much written about the pros and cons of each. But I think its fairly clear that there is no good solution to the problem you outline.

  • To expand, the most logical response really is to just do it by field. Smaller fields or fields where style of approach is very easy to identify should do single-blind, and fields where that's easier to hide should do double blind. As far as I can tell, that's roughly the norm now. – JoshuaZ Nov 27 '18 at 14:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.