At the moment, I am aware the American Mathematical Monthly and Mathematics Magazine (from several years) and Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society (from one year, approximately) are using the double-blind review system. I find it very useful, especially for young researchers.

Where can I find the list of similar math journals which uses the double-blind review system?

Ps. Is there some reason why most math journals prefer single-blind review system?

Ps2. An interesting related thread here.

  • 7
    In many (most?) fields, double-blind is very laborious or even not feasible at all. It does not always work well in math, either, because the papers are on arXiv anyway. And change requires certain infrastructure in place. Consider a website engine someone would have written for journals in physics - you either could borrow it as-is and do single-blind, or invest into switching to double-blind. Required labor is not free, and sharing resources helps to reduce costs.
    – Lodinn
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 16:15
  • 7
    I would argue that at least in part this is because preprint publishing is generally encouraged in math, and forbidding preprints would be contrary to the late trend that emerged to fight the publisher mafia. And no, the suggested benefit for young researchers is also not immediately apparent - if you are alluding to possible reviewer biases with not taking these young researchers seriously, writing likely gives it away anyway.
    – Lodinn
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 16:31
  • 2
    Change is only useful if there is concrete evidence that change leads to better outcomes. I am not convinced that that would be so. Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 19:07
  • 9
    @Paolo Leonetti "The benefit for young researchers would be clear" The benefit to young researchers is not clear to me at all. On the contrary, young researchers with few publications under their belt benefit the most from being able to disseminate their new work more efficiently. The idea that there is some bias against young researchers seems entirely speculative and not at all congruent with my experience. (Is that what you are suggesting? You seem to take it for granted that it's clear why double blind is better for young researchers than single blind, but it really is not clear to me.) Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 19:20
  • 2
    Theoretical fields and fields with accessible hardware at least can be feasibly double blinded, but I would have to speculate again to guess how prevalent the dependency on something fairly specific is in science (and that can happen in purely theoretical fields as well). All in all, if it came at no additional time cost for me as an author and a reviewer, I would happily roll with double blind, I just don't see enough value in it to spend time every submission scrubbing it clean. Maybe because it takes me an anomalously long time, I don't know.
    – Lodinn
    Commented Jan 6, 2023 at 9:19


Browse other questions tagged .