Sir

Why do journals expect scientists to use double-blind methods in their research, but refuse to apply a double-blind approach in evaluating that same research? The Editorial 'Working double-blind'(Nature 451, 605–606; doi:10.1038/451605b 2008) addresses this long-standing puzzle, arguing in defence of the current system of single-blind review.

This echoes the attitude of most journals over the years. The reasons offered in support of this stance have gradually mutated with time — from the burden of removing author names, through the inefficiency of masking author identity, to the potential downsides of author anonymity. The underlying attitude has remained fundamentally unchanged.

This makes me wonder whether the invariable position of leading journals on double-blind review may in fact be the result of an invariable reason, the mention of which is consistently avoided. To venture a guess: could that reason be pressure from prominent members of the research community who are opposed to a system in which they cannot fully rely on the benefits of their reputation?