People who suspect non-scientific shenanigans (of the political or craven variety) have blocked the acceptance of their paper or fundable score for their grant often cry for double-blind review.
At present the reviewers are not blinded as the the identity of the authors or grant proposer(s).
The thought is that not providing reviewers with author/Investigator identity will prevent reputation or other seemingly irrelevant social cachet/hand/power from contaminating a sober, objective evaluation of the science.
It can't work. There are simply too many clues in the topic, cited literature, approaches and interpretive framework. In the fields that I inhabit, anyway.
Even if in some cases the reviewers would be unable to nail down which lab was involved, it would be uneven. And let me tell you, the chances of detection would be highest for well-known groups.
All this would do would be to reinforce the reputation bias!
Please, I beg you my idealistic friends, tell me how this is supposed to work? Think hard about all the manuscripts you've reviewed and tell me how they could be restructured so as to provide a near guarantee (p<0.05) of blinding.
Oh, you can yammer on about how you were done dirty, too. Sure you can get all red about how I am an apologist for status quo and defeatist and all that. And by all means rant about the horrible effects on science.
But try, this once, not to sidestep my main point.....how is blinding supposed to work?