Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review process. Many scholars have advocated for double-blind peer review (also known as double-anonymous review) to reduce these biases. However, the effectiveness of double‐blind peer review in eliminating biases is uncertain because few randomized trials have manipulated blinding of author identities for journal submissions, and those that have are generally small or provide few insights on how it influences reviewer biases.
In 2019, Functional Ecology began a large randomized trial, using real manuscript submissions, to evaluate the various consequences of shifting to double-blind peer review. Research papers submitted to the journal were randomly assigned to be reviewed with author identities blinded to reviewers (double‐blind review) or with authors identified to reviewers (single-blind review). In this paper, we explore the effect of blinding on the outcomes of peer review, examining reviewer ratings..., ,