The hypothesis that masking does not improve the objectivity and quality of reviews has, therefore, simply not been adequately tested. The principal argument against blinding is that it might foster irresponsibility, particularly slanted and destructive criticism, because reviewers know that authors cannot hold them personally accountable for their opinions. Presentation at the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications. Documentation is lacking, however, on whether the quality of reviews improved or declined as a result of unblinding. Fairness and accountability are potent considerations, to be sure.
Editors know very well who they are.
Relying on multiple rather than single reviewers and using reviewers' comments as advisory rather than binding opinions are further important safeguards for authors. The rare reviewer who slants critiques inappropriately or oversteps the bounds of civility is simply not invited to review again. The price we pay for blinding therefore appears to be small. If a major goal of peer review is objectivity, we should be doing everything we can to remove the personal element from the process of making intellectual judgments about biomedical papers, whether that element is the identity of authors or of reviewers. From this perspective, we think that blinding authors to reviewers' identity makes sense and intend to continue the practice at Annals .