Here are some references about the pros and cons of double-blind peer review:

* Book: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths & Weaknesses by Ann C. Weller [1]. This book covers not only double-blind peer review, but empirical studies about all kinds of peer review (including open peer review, where even the reviewers are not anonymous). This book, and papers it summarizes, is my primary source of information on this topic. If your library doesn't have it, you could ask them to get it (that's how I got a hold of it for myself).

* Nature magazine report on an international survey about peer review [2]. Highlights pertinent to this discussion:
- "Support [for double-blind peer review] is highest with those who have experienced it (the humanities and social sciences) or *where it is perceived to do the most good (among female authors)*. The least enthusiastic group is editors."
- "The one bright light in favour of double-blind peer review is the measured reduction in bias against authors with female first names (shown in numerous studies, such as ref. 4). This suggests that authors submitting papers to traditionally minded journals should include the given names of authors only on the final, published version."
- "The double-blind approach is predicated on a culture in which manuscripts-in-progress are kept secret. This is true for the most part in the life sciences. But some physical sciences, such as high-energy physics, share preprints extensively through arXiv, an online repository. *Thus, double-blind peer review is at odds with another 'force for good' in the academic world: the open sharing of information.* The PRC survey found that highly competitive fields (such as neuroscience) or those with larger commercial or applied interests (such as materials science and chemical engineering) were the most enthusiastic about double-blinding, whereas fields with more of a tradition for openness (astronomy and mathematics) were decidedly less supportive."

* Two open discussions on Nature magazine blogs about double-blind peer review from 2005 [3] and 2008 [4]. The 2008 discussion was in response to the editorial mentioned above.

~ Chitu

[1] http://www.amazon.ca/Editorial-Peer-Review-Strengths-Weaknesses/dp/1573871001
[2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/451605b.html
[3] http://blogs.nature.com/actionpotential/2005/12/doubleblind_peer_review.html
[4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html

Manuel Palomo Duarte a écrit :

The woman discrimination is something the journal should care about. Any idea on how to face it?