Direct comparison
Single-Anonymous vs Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Single-anonymous (single-blind), double-anonymous, and open peer review compared: what each model hides, who sees what, and how journals differ.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · free to try
Ask about Single-Anonymous vs Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Single-anonymized, Double-anonymized, Open review compare side by side?
The table below compares Single-anonymized, Double-anonymized, Open review across 9 procurement-relevant dimensions, from also known as through current preferred term (stm 2020 taxonomy).
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Single-anonymized | Double-anonymized | Open review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Also known as | Single-blind (older term) | Double-blind (older term) | Open review, transparent review |
| Reviewer identity visible to author? | No | No | Usually yes; often published alongside the article |
| Author identity visible to reviewer? | Yes | No, in principle; though often guessable from preprints, self-citation, or writing style | Yes |
| Review reports published? | No, by default | No, by default | Often; decision letters, referee reports, or full correspondence, depending on the journal |
| Main rationale | Reviewers can criticize freely without fear of reprisal from the authors | Judges the work on its merits, reducing bias from an author's name, institution, gender, or nationality | Makes reviewers accountable for their comments and gives reviewers citable credit |
| Main criticism | No reciprocal accountability for the reviewer; author reputation can still bias review | Author identity is often guessable in practice; doesn't fully solve bias | Reviewers, especially early-career ones, may soften criticism or decline to review at all |
| Where it's most common | Broad default across STEM and biomedical publishing | Common in social sciences and humanities; author-selectable option at some STEM journals | Standard at post-publication and preprint-linked publishers; opt-in at others |
| Real-world examples | Default at most Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley biomedical/STEM titles | Author-selectable at Nature and the Nature research journals, since 2015; RSC's Chemical Science; default at many humanities/social-science journals | F1000Research (fully open, post-publication); PLOS Published Peer Review History (opt-in); BMJ prepublication history; Nature Communications opt-in published reports, since 2015; ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML (double-blind during review, made public after decisions via OpenReview) |
| Current preferred term (STM 2020 taxonomy) | Single-anonymized | Double-anonymized | Open peer review; already unambiguous, no revision needed |
Common questions
Common questions about Single-anonymized vs Double-anonymized vs Open review
Which peer review type is most rigorous?
+
No model has been consistently shown to produce more rigorous reviews; evidence on quality differences is mixed. The real trade-off is which failure mode a journal is more worried about: reviewer timidity (addressed by anonymizing reviewers) or author bias (addressed by anonymizing authors).
Why do some sources say 'double-blind' and others say 'double-anonymized'?
+
Both describe the identical practice. A 2020 STM Association peer review taxonomy working group recommended replacing 'blind'/'blinded' with 'anonymized' because the older terms are ableist in origin. Many journals and search results still use 'blind'; expect to see both in the literature.
Can authors choose their peer review model?
+
At some journals, yes; Nature and the Nature research journals let authors opt into double-blind review at submission, and several journals let authors choose whether to make their peer review history public. Most journals apply one model uniformly and don't offer a choice.
Does open peer review mean anyone can review the paper?
+
No. 'Open' here describes transparency around an already-invited, formal review process (published reports, disclosed identities), not open or crowdsourced participation. Fully open community review is a related but distinct model.
Is there such a thing as triple-blind review?
+
Some journals use the term for a model where the handling editor is also kept unaware of author identity, in addition to author-reviewer anonymization. It is uncommon compared to single- and double-anonymized review.
Going deeper
