Double-blind peer review

Definition: Evaluation of research products by qualified experts where both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are anonymous to each other. “This approach conceals the identity of the authors and their affiliations from reviewers and would, in theory, remove biases of professional reputation, gender, race, and institutional affiliation, allowing the reviewer to avoid bias and to focus on the manuscript’s merit alone.” (Tvina et al., 2019, 1082). Like all types of peer-review, double-blind peer review is not without flaws. Anonymity can be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve for certain researchers working in a niche area.

Related terms: <a href='/glossary/ad-hominem-bias/'>Ad hominem bias</a>, <a href='/glossary/affiliation-bias/'>Affiliation bias</a>, Anonymous review, Masked review, <a href='/glossary/open-peer-review/'>Open peer review</a>, Peer review, <a href='/glossary/single-blind-peer-review/'>Single-blind peer review</a>, Traditional peer review, <a href='/glossary/triple-blind-peer-review/'>Triple-Blind peer review</a>

References: Largent and Snodgrass (2016), & Tvina et al. (2019)

Drafted and Reviewed by: Mahmoud Elsherif, Bradley Baker, Helena Hartmann, Meng Liu, Emma Norris

Note that we are currently working on an automated mechanism to link references cited above with their full-length version that can be found at with all references used so far.