Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A manuscript submitted to a typical biomedical journal running the default review model: the handling editor and both reviewers can see the full author list, affiliations, and acknowledgments in the submitted file, but the corresponding author only ever receives comments attributed to "Reviewer 1" and "Reviewer 2," with no name or institution disclosed unless a reviewer opts in to signing their own report.
- Is an instance
A journal's author guidelines stating that the review process is "single-blind (reviewers know author identity, authors do not know reviewer identity)" is describing this same model under its older, still-common name.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
A journal that also redacts the author list, affiliations, and self-identifying references from the manuscript file before it reaches reviewers — withholding author identity from reviewers as well as reviewer identity from authors — is running double-anonymized (double-blind) review, not single-anonymized: both directions are masked, not one.
- Not an instance
A journal that publishes reviewers' signed reports alongside the accepted article, or otherwise discloses reviewer identity to authors as a matter of policy, is running a form of open peer review — disclosure runs in the direction single-anonymized review specifically withholds.
Editorial commentary
Single-anonymized peer review is the peer-review model in which reviewers are told the identity of a manuscript’s authors, but authors are not told the identity of the reviewers assessing their work. It is the long-standing default across most STEM and biomedical publishing, including the majority of Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley journals in those fields.
The terminology shift from “single-blind”
This model was traditionally, and is still very widely, called “single-blind” review. The ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 peer-review terminology standard — built from a taxonomy first developed by an STM Association working group convened in 2019 and formalized by NISO in 2023 — recommends “single-anonymized” instead. The rationale, documented across multiple independent style-guidance sources rather than a single official statement, is that “blind”/”blinded” is regarded as ableist: it uses concealment of identity as a metaphor for lack of sight or lack of knowledge, and the shift to “anonymized” language is part of a broader move in scholarly-publishing style guidance away from disability-referencing terminology. Despite the standard’s recommendation, “single-blind” remains in very wide use in journal policy pages and in how researchers actually search for and describe the identical practice — the two terms refer to exactly the same review model.
How it fits the broader peer-review terminology framework
The NISO/STM standard describes identity transparency as one of four dimensions used to characterize any journal’s review model, alongside who the reviewer interacts with, what review information is published, and whether post-publication commenting is enabled. Single-anonymized sits at one end of the identity-transparency dimension; the standard’s other named identity-transparency states include double-anonymized (both parties’ identities withheld from each other) and models where all identities are visible to each other throughout review. See the general peer review entry for how these models relate to the review process as a whole.
Examples
A manuscript submitted to a typical biomedical journal running the default review model: the handling editor and both reviewers can see the full author list, affiliations, and acknowledgments in the submitted file, but the corresponding author only ever receives comments attributed to “Reviewer 1” and “Reviewer 2,” with no name or institution disclosed unless a reviewer opts in to signing their own report. A journal’s author guidelines describing its process as “single-blind (reviewers know author identity, authors do not know reviewer identity)” is describing this same model under its older, still-common name.
What it is not
A journal that also redacts the author list, affiliations, and self-identifying references from the manuscript file before it reaches reviewers — withholding author identity from reviewers as well as reviewer identity from authors — is running double-anonymized (double-blind) review, not single-anonymized: both directions are masked, not one. A journal that publishes reviewers’ signed reports alongside the accepted article, or otherwise discloses reviewer identity to authors as a matter of policy, is running a form of open peer review — disclosure runs in the direction single-anonymized review specifically withholds.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is single-anonymized review the same as single-blind review?
Yes — they describe the identical practice. “Single-anonymized” is the terminology the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 standard recommends, replacing the older “single-blind,” but both terms remain in active use for the same review model.
Why did the terminology change from “blind” to “anonymized”?
“Blind”/”blinded” is regarded as having an ableist origin, using concealment of identity as a metaphor for lack of sight. The shift to “anonymized” is part of a broader move in scholarly-publishing style guidance away from disability-referencing language.
How is single-anonymized review different from double-anonymized review?
In single-anonymized review, only reviewer identity is withheld (from authors); author identity is visible to reviewers. In double-anonymized review, both directions are masked — reviewers also do not know who the authors are.
References
- NISO, ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023, “Transparency of Peer Review” terminology standard (niso.org), developed from an STM Association working-group taxonomy convened 2019, formalized by NISO 2023.
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Single-anonymized peer review"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/single-anonymized-peer-review" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/single-anonymized-peer-review",
"name": "Single-anonymized peer review",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/single-anonymized-peer-review",
"description": "The peer-review model in which reviewers are told the identity of a manuscript's authors, but authors are not told the identity of the reviewers assessing their work. Traditionally called \"single-blind\" review — the STM Association's 2020 peer-review terminology recommends \"single-anonymized\" instead, since \"blind\"/\"blinded\" have an ableist origin, though \"single-blind\" remains in very wide use in journal policy pages and search queries for the identical practice. It is the long-standing default across most STEM and biomedical publishing, including the majority of Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley journals in those fields, and is distinguished from double-anonymized review (both parties' identities withheld from each other) and open review (some part of the process — identities, reports, or both — made public, before or after publication).",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/research-integrity#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/single-anonymized-peer-review",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-17T01:56:29",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
