Why we must trust ourselves

Fox CW (2023) Double-anonymous review is an effective way of combating status bias in scholarly publishing. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/09/28/double-anonymous-review-is-an-effective-way-of-combating-status-bias-in-scholarly-publishing/ (Accessed October 9, 2025).

Fox CW Meyer J Aimé E (2023) Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology 37: 1144–1157.

Justice AC Cho MK Winker MA , et al. (1998) Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280(3): 240–242.

McGillivray B De Ranieri E (2018) Uptake and Outcome of Manuscripts in Nature Journals by Review Model and Author Characteristics. Res Integrity Peer Rev 3(5): 5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z

Nature Portfolio (2024) Double-anonymized peer review at Nature journals. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/peer-review#double-anonymized-peer-review (Accessed October 9, 2025).

Naujokaitytė G (2025) Commission Considers ‘Lottery’ Awards for Horizon Europe. Science|Business. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/r-d-funding/horizon-europe/commission-considers-lottery-awards-horizon-europe (accessed October 9, 2025).

Tomkins A Zhang M Heavlin WD (2017) Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114(48): 12708–12713.