Yes—under single-blind and open models, reviewers know who wrote the paper; under double-blind, they shouldn’t.
Peer review comes in several flavors. In some setups, the referee can see who wrote the manuscript. In others, names are masked. A few journals publish reviewer names and reports as part of an open process. Knowing which path a journal uses tells you whether identities are shared.
Peer Review Models At A Glance
Three models show up across journals and publishers. The table below maps who can see whom, plus where each model tends to appear. Use it as a quick orientation before digging into submission guides.
| Model | Who Sees Whom | Where You’ll See It |
|---|---|---|
| Single-Blind (Single-Anonymized) | Reviewers see author names; authors don’t see reviewer names. | Common in many science and medical titles. |
| Double-Blind (Double-Anonymized) | Neither side sees names during review when masking holds. | Used by a mix of publishers; often offered as an option. |
| Open Review | Authors and reviewers know each other; reports may be public. | Certain open-science and select portfolio journals. |
Do Reviewers See Who Wrote The Paper? Practical Cases
In many journals that run single-blind review, the referee panel can read the byline and affiliations right away. Publishers describe this plainly in their public guides; for instance, Elsevier explains that in single-blind review the referee can view the author’s name, while in double-blind the name is hidden during assessment (peer review process for journals). Ethics bodies also set expectations for conduct across models; the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) outlines duties for referees and stresses confidentiality and fairness across setups (ethical guidelines for peer reviewers). Those two pages show how visibility works in practice and what behavior is expected once access is granted.
When Names Are Visible By Design
Single-blind review runs with a one-way screen: authors can’t see the referee list, but the referee can see author names. That visibility lets readers of the submission evaluate prior work connections and potential overlaps in methods or data. Some editors prefer this setup for speed and familiarity.
Open review removes the screen for both sides. The idea is full accountability: comments carry a signature, and, in many journals that use this route, the critique appears online next to the paper. That visibility may change how people phrase their feedback, but it also credits the labor.
When Names Should Be Hidden
Double-blind seeks to remove identity signals during assessment. If blinding holds, the referee doesn’t know who wrote the work while forming a judgment. That can temper halo effects around famous labs or institutions. Many large publishers now offer a blinding option during submission; the editor then checks files for names and asks authors to mask self-citing phrases and file metadata.
Real life isn’t flawless, though. A referee may still guess an author based on prior preprints, a niche dataset, or a distinctive method section. Good policy asks the referee to flag a breach to the handling editor rather than proceed with a bias.
What Editors Usually Check Before Sending A Manuscript Out
Editors run quick hygiene checks that relate to name visibility:
- File names and metadata: PDFs, Word docs, figures, and supplements shouldn’t carry author names if the journal uses blinding.
- Self-references: Phrases like “our prior study” can unmask a team. Neutral wording helps.
- Acknowledgments and funding lines: These sit outside the main file or get hidden until after a decision.
- Preprint links: Allowed in many fields, but they can reveal identity; editors weigh that when selecting referees.
Pros And Trade-Offs By Model
Single-Blind
Upsides: Simple workflow; referees can place methods and data in context. Trade-offs: Prestige and network cues might color reading.
Double-Blind
Upsides: Less name-driven reading; new labs can get a fairer shake. Trade-offs: Masking can fail when a niche topic, dataset, or preprint trail points to a group.
Open Review
Upsides: Accountability and credit for review labor; readers see the reasoning. Trade-offs: Some referees may decline to sign tough critiques; tone may soften.
How Authors Can Keep Names Hidden Under Blinding
If a journal runs double-blind review, masking is a shared task. Here’s a practical checklist that keeps identity out of view during assessment.
Manuscript Text
- Use neutral self-citation: write “Smith et al. (2023)” rather than “our prior study.”
- Move grant numbers and award names to a separate funding form if the journal provides one.
- Strip institutional slogans or lab nicknames from figures and captions.
Files And Metadata
- Export a clean PDF without author tags in the file properties.
- Rename uploads with plain labels like “manuscript.pdf,” “figure-1.png,” and “supplement-table-A.xlsx.”
- Remove tracked-changes metadata that might show a user name or email.
Data And Code
- Share blinded links during review (private repository or journal upload) and swap to public links at acceptance.
- Replace lab-branded headers in notebooks with generic labels.
- Use a readme that omits personal names; keep full credits for the camera-ready version.
Editor And Reviewer Etiquette Around Identity
Editors aim to pick unbiased readers and keep contact routed through the journal. Referees should avoid revealing names, stay off direct contact with authors during active review, and report any breach. Many portfolio policies say referees shouldn’t sign messages to authors during assessment; Nature’s policy page, for instance, asks referees not to reveal who they are while a paper is under consideration (peer review policy).
Common Ways Blinding Breaks (And Fixes)
Leaks happen. Here are patterns that often give the game away and quick fixes that keep names out of sight.
| Leak Pattern | Why It Unmasks | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Self-referential language | “We extend our earlier method …” ties the draft to a lab. | Use neutral phrasing and standard citations. |
| Institutional logos on figures | Brand marks point straight to a campus or center. | Remove marks; keep plain labels during review. |
| File properties with real names | PDF or image metadata can store author tags. | Clear properties or export a fresh, clean file. |
| Dataset or code links with lab names | Handles and repo paths can reveal the group. | Use blinded links supplied by the journal. |
| Grant numbers tied to a PI | Public grant databases map numbers to people. | Move funder info to a hidden form until acceptance. |
Field Differences You’ll Notice
Conventions vary. Many physics and math communities post preprints early, so blinding is tough. Some clinical titles lean on single-blind due to heavy method vetting and specialist pools. Humanities and social fields mix models; some titles request a masked draft and a separate title page, while others run signed reports.
Conference review can differ from journal review. Large events often use single-blind for speed, though some switch to double-blind in rounds where name bias could creep in.
What This Means For Your Next Submission
Read The Journal’s Guide Before Uploading
Find the section on referee model, masking rules, and file prep. Many guides include line-by-line masking steps, sample wording for self-citations, and how to handle preprints and data links.
Pick The Model If There’s A Choice
Some titles let authors select a blinding option at submission. Choose the route that fits your aims. If you pick double-blind, follow the checklist above so the editor can send the draft out without delays.
Keep Communications Centralized
Send all replies through the journal system. Don’t email a referee directly, even if you guess who it is. Editors want one clear trail.
Quick Answers To Common Scenarios
“Our preprint is online—does that ruin blinding?”
Not by itself. Many titles permit screening a masked draft even if a preprint exists. Still, a preprint can make a guess easier, so keep the manuscript and files scrubbed.
“A referee guessed our lab—what now?”
Let the editor know. The editor can swap in a new reader or ask the panel to proceed with care. Don’t reach out to the referee.
“Can we sign our response letter?”
If the journal runs single-blind, that’s inherent. If the journal runs double-blind, keep names off the response during active review. The editor will link the files on their side.
Model Choice And Outcomes
The model can change how people read a draft. Studies in medicine and ecology have probed score shifts under blinding. Findings vary by field and setup, but the main takeaway for authors is simple: know the rules of your target title and prepare files to match them. That way, the read centers on the work, not your lab’s name.
Bottom Line For Authors And Reviewers
If a journal uses single-blind or open review, referees can see who wrote the submission. If a journal uses double-blind and masking holds, they can’t. Follow the journal’s posted guide, scrub files, and keep contact through the editor. That set of habits prevents leaks and speeds the path from submission to decision.