A new paper by CA Mebane in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry now makes six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses by
(1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental
(2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect
(3) author networks can be revealing
(4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors
(5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind
(6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias.
And here are his 5 recommendations for improving scientific integrity
(1) Require persistent identifiers, i.e., ORCIDs, and encourage
durable email addresses from all authors, not just the corresponding
author
(2) Withhold author information from the review invitation
emails
(3) Conduct the review in the usual single-blind style, with
reviewers having full access to all the same manuscript
materials as the editors, except the cover letter
(4) Cross-review and drop the ‘confidential comments to the editor’
option
(5) Open review reports: Publish the anonymous peer review
reports and author responses as online supplements.