Some journals in some other fields offer a double-blind option to authors, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Some of the major journals in philosophy use even triple-blind review, in which even the editor is anonymous. But in mathematics, single-blind is the norm.
People on the double side believe it leads to a more objective outcome. Other people actually feel that knowing who the authors are provides additional qualifications. Plus, many people think that their identity can be guessed anyway.
As authors, as editors, as referees, what do you think about considering double-blind peer review in mathematics journals?