From the author guidelines:
eNeuro uses a double-blind review process, which means the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. In order to facilitate this, authors must ensure their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity.
And how do they plan to accomplish this feat?
Eliminate author names and contact information from anyplace in the paper. See Title page for more information.
Make sure to use the third person to refer to personal work e.g. replace any phrases like 'as we have shown before' with 'has been shown before (Anonymous, 2007)'
Make sure that the materials and methods section does not refer to personal work. Do not include statements such as “using the method described in (XXX, 2007).” See Materials and Methods for more information.
Ensure that figures do not contain any affiliation-related identifier.
Depersonalize the work by using anonymous text where necessary. Do not include statements such as “as we have reported before”.
Remove self-citations and citations to unpublished work.
Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references, but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.
Remove references to funding sources
I will be fascinated to see what procedures they have in place to determine if the blinding is actually working.
Will reviewers asked for their top five guesses as to the identity of the group submitting the manuscript do better than chance?
Will identification depend on the fame and status (and productivity) of the group submitting the paper?
Will it correlate with relatedness of scientific expertise?
What fraction of authors are identified all the time versus never?
Somehow, I suspect the staff of eNeuro will not really be interested in testing their assumptions.