Rethinking (un)blinding in biomedical proposal peer review: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study

Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals’ peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the implications of open peer review for biomedical proposals’ peer review. We conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm, using semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar. Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked to rate 7 quantitative statements to supplement the qualitative data. Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately three themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining blinded reviewers’ identities, (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in proposals’ peer review, and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems. While there remains a strong preference for double-blinded review within the context of our study, its limitations have become evident—particularly given current funding challenges. These shortcomings highlight the need for greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation processes.