Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity

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 upon editors; 5) Double-blind reviews aren’t 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.