Double-blind peer review of research papers is a worthy idea but has two flaws in practice (Nature 518, 274; 2015).
First, most modern research builds on previous studies published by a limited number of groups. This makes it almost impossible to write a paper without revealing with near certainty who the authors are, even if they manage to avoid such giveaways as “we showed previously that … (No Longer Anonymous et al., 2012)”.
The second flaw is more serious. To function in our increasingly competitive research culture in which misconduct is on the rise, researchers need to be aware which labs can be trusted and which have a record of irreproducibility. If a highly regarded lab and one with a questionable reputation each submitted reports of similar investigations, a competent reviewer would not compromise standards in evaluating either, but would be extra vigilant in assessing the questionable lab’s study.
Double-blind peer review removes this crucial quality-control option, opening the way for mediocre and bad labs to clutter the literature with substandard science.