Introduction
As Indian PhD students prepare to submit their work to reputed journals, the term “peer review” becomes unavoidable. Among its types, two common methods — blind review and double-blind review — are often misunderstood or confused. Understanding how each of these works is crucial not just for smoother publishing but also for building confidence in scholarly processes. This blog explains both methods clearly, especially from the perspective of scholars submitting from Indian universities, where awareness of these distinctions may still be limited.
What Is Peer Review, Briefly?
Before we get into the difference between blind and double-blind reviews, it’s important to recap the idea of peer review itself. When you submit your research article to a good journal, it doesn’t get published immediately. Instead, it’s sent to other researchers (called peers) who are experts in the same field. They evaluate the quality, originality, clarity, and relevance of your work — this is peer review.
Peer review acts like quality control. It ensures your paper meets certain academic standards before it becomes part of the published research community.
What Is a Blind Review?
In a blind review, the identity of the author is hidden from the reviewer. This means when a reviewer reads your paper, they don’t know your name, institution, or background. The purpose is to reduce bias. For example, if the reviewer knows you are from a lesser-known private university, they might judge your work unfairly (even subconsciously). Blind review tries to prevent that.
However, in a blind review, you as the author still know who the reviewers are — or, at least, the reviewers are not anonymised formally. Some journals may choose to reveal reviewer identities after the process, especially if they allow open communication between author and reviewer after the decision.
What Is a Double-Blind Review?
In a double-blind review, both the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other. Neither side knows who the other is. This approach is considered more neutral because it removes bias from both ends. The reviewer doesn’t know who wrote the paper, and the author doesn’t know who reviewed it.
Many reputed journals — including Scopus-indexed and UGC-CARE journals — follow this model. The idea is to create a fairer system where your work is judged solely on its merit, not on your background, institutional affiliation, or name recognition.
Why Do These Distinctions Matter?
The type of review system used can affect your publishing experience in subtle ways:
- In blind review, there is a chance that bias (positive or negative) may creep in if the reviewer guesses the author’s identity based on citations or writing style.
- In double-blind review, efforts are made to mask all such identifiers, which is often better for early-career researchers who may not yet be well-known in their field.
For Indian PhD students, especially those from lesser-known universities or interdisciplinary backgrounds, double-blind review offers a more level playing field. It gives your research a fair chance, free from assumptions based on your background.
Challenges with Double-Blind Reviews
While double-blind reviews sound ideal, they are not without challenges:
- It’s not always easy to remove clues from the paper. For instance, if you’ve cited your own previous work, the reviewer might still guess who you are.
- In niche research fields, where only a few researchers are active, anonymity is harder to maintain.
- Authors must take extra care to anonymise their documents before submission — removing acknowledgements, university names, and author bios.
Still, journals usually provide clear guidelines on how to prepare a double-blind submission. Following these closely is part of the academic process.
Which Review Type Is Better?
There’s no universally “better” method. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, from the perspective of early-stage scholars and especially Indian PhD students who are still building their research identity, double-blind reviews offer greater fairness. They minimise bias and ensure that your work is seen for what it is — not where you come from.
Some top Indian journals, as well as global ones, are now even exploring open peer review, where both names are known and even reviewer comments are published. But that’s a topic for another time.
Conclusion
In India’s evolving research culture, where access to reputed journals is slowly becoming more democratic, knowing the difference between blind and double-blind reviews is a step toward empowerment. While both systems aim to uphold quality and fairness, the double-blind model offers additional protection against bias — something that can be particularly beneficial for lesser-known or first-time authors.
For any PhD scholar aiming to publish in serious academic spaces, understanding the peer review process — including how reviewers are selected, how anonymity works, and how to prepare a blind submission — is no longer optional. It’s an essential part of research literacy.
Ultimately, knowing what kind of review process a journal uses helps you submit with better preparation and realistic expectations. And that’s a good foundation for confident academic publishing.