The Fractured Logic of Blinded Peer Review in Journals
The case for “blinding” to make journal peer review fair seems less and less plausible to me for the long run. It even seems antithetical to ultimately reducing the problems it’s a bandaid solution for.
New simulation study says peer review is better at assuring quality research than random publication choices, but some systems of review are significantly better than others. Editors seen as more effective than peer-review panels alone.