Comparison
Single-blind vs double-blind review for conferences
Updated · WebMobi
What is the difference between single-blind and double-blind review?
In single-blind review, reviewers know who wrote a submission but authors do not know who reviewed it. In double-blind review neither side knows the other: author names and affiliations are withheld from reviewers. Open review removes anonymity on both sides. Some publishers, Elsevier among them, call the first two single-anonymized and double-anonymized review.
The review model decides who knows whom while the work is judged. It is the first decision in any conference review, and it shapes the call for abstracts as much as the review itself.
The models side by side
| Model | Reviewers know the authors? | Authors know the reviewers? | What it guards against | What it asks of authors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-blind (single-anonymized) | Yes | No | Retaliation against a critical reviewer. | Nothing beyond the normal submission. |
| Double-blind (double-anonymized) | No | No | Judging the author’s name or institution instead of the work, as well as retaliation. | Keep names, institutions and identifying self-references out of the text. |
| Triple-anonymized | No | No — and the deciding editor does not know either | Bias at the decision stage too. | The same as double-blind. |
| Open review | Yes | Yes | Unaccountable reviewing; it makes each review attributable. | Nothing, but reviewers must be willing to be named. |
Elsevier defines the models this way and describes single-anonymized review as “the traditional method of reviewing” and “the most common type by far”. It also notes that open review is an umbrella term: its most common definition is that reviewer and author know each other during review.
Why many conferences choose double-blind
Conference review is fast and the reviewer pool is often small, so a reviewer may form a view of an abstract from the name on it before reading the method. Double-blind review removes that shortcut: the only thing left to judge is the work. It matters most where early-career authors compete with established groups for a limited number of oral slots.
What double-blind cannot do
- It cannot hide an author who identifies themselves in the text — “as we showed in our 2024 trial at…”.
- In a small field, a reviewer may recognize the work regardless, especially if a preprint is public.
- It hides authors from reviewers, not from the committee, which still needs to see who submitted what to build the program.
None of these is a reason to give it up; they are reasons to write clear author instructions and to let reviewers declare a conflict when they recognize the work.
What to tell authors and reviewers under double-blind review
- Authors: leave names, institutions, funding details that identify a group and self-references such as “our previous work” out of the title and abstract.
- Authors: refer to your own earlier work in the third person, as you would to anyone else’s.
- Reviewers: do not search for the authors.
- Reviewers: if you recognize the work, declare a conflict and let the committee reassign it.
Models can be combined: the ICLR example
The International Conference on Learning Representations runs double-blind review — its author guide states that “reviewers cannot see author names when conducting reviews, and authors cannot see reviewer names” — while publishing the reviews themselves: “Official reviews are anonymous and publicly visible in OpenReview.” Anonymity and transparency are separate choices, and a conference can make each one deliberately.
Which should your conference use?
- Choose double-blind if
- oral slots are scarce, authors range from students to senior researchers, or your community has asked for fairer review. Budget for the author instructions it needs.
- Choose single-blind if
- the work cannot be judged without knowing its context — for example invited case series or industry reports — or anonymizing the text would remove what reviewers need.
- Choose open review if
- your community values attributable reviews and reviewers are willing to be named.
Setting the model in WebMobi
WebMobi offers single blind, double blind and open review for each event, with double blind as the default. Under double blind, author names and affiliations are withheld before the reviewer’s page receives the submission — they are not merely hidden on screen. Reviewers never see who else reviewed a submission. Triple-anonymized review is not offered: the organizers who make decisions can see the authors. See conference peer review software, and how to organize peer review for the whole process.
Frequently asked questions
Is double-blind review the same as double-anonymized review?
Yes. Some publishers, Elsevier among them, use “anonymized” instead of “blind”; the model is the same.
Does open review mean the reviews are published?
Not necessarily. In its most common definition, reviewers and authors know each other during review. Publishing the reviews is a separate decision — ICLR, for example, publishes anonymous reviews under double-blind review.
Can we switch model part-way through review?
It is better not to. Reviewers who have already scored under one model cannot unsee what they saw. Decide before the call opens and say it in the call.
Sources
- Elsevier — What is peer review? — Definitions of single anonymized, double anonymized, triple anonymized and open review; single anonymized described as the most common type.
- ICLR 2026 Author Guide — ICLR’s double-blind submissions with anonymous reviews that are publicly visible on OpenReview.
Your conference starts with one sentence.
Describe your conference in a sentence. AI proposes the event and its website, and your workspace suggests the academic modules to switch on. Nothing is public until you publish.
Create your academic event →