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?


closed as primarily opinion-based by Nate Eldredge, Lucia, Chris Godsil, Neil Strickland, Joël Feb 17 '17 at 21:40

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question would be more adapted to academia.stackexchange. Of course, if you post there, please precise that you're talking about mathematics. $\endgroup$ – Joël Feb 17 '17 at 21:38
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ It is usually unrealistic to hide the identity of the author, especially if the article was already available on the arXiv before. $\endgroup$ – Lennart Meier Feb 17 '17 at 21:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That said, the question is interesting, and there used to be question of this kind on this forum, but not anymore since academia has been created. $\endgroup$ – Joël Feb 17 '17 at 21:39
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The question is specifically about mathematics journal and an interesting one. I think that mathoverflow is the right place for the question although it needs to be more specific. If such a question is not suitable here, then what is the purpose of the 'peer-review' tag? $\endgroup$ – Lee Feb 17 '17 at 22:13
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Even in pre-arXiv days, double-blind refereeing didn't work in the one case that I was involved with. (The Proceedings of the A.M.S. experimented with blind refereeing briefly.) My report said: If the paper is by XXX then accept it; if not then put the author in touch with XXX, who presented the same results at conference YYY. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Feb 17 '17 at 22:50

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.