Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research
Published on: August 4, 2023
Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity
1Boise, ID, United States.
Abstract:
I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices: (1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental; (2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect; (3) author networks can be revealing; (4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors; (5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind; and (6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias. I offer an alternative approach that could provide a more transparent approach for improving scientific integrity and equity in publishing.
Related Concept Videos
Blind Procedures
Blinding
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Feedback Inhibition
The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
Ethics in Research

