Action Potential

Double blind peer review is a very good idea, especially for young and un-wellknown authors. The chance of having reviewers familiar with the work described in a paper they review is much smaller than the chance of not being familiar. Plus, the revieweres may have less difficulties in trying to be correct. I vote for DBPR.

I'm in favour of DBPR. There appears to be a tendency to over-represent the work of a small number of authors within an area in the pages of NN. Favouring the work of these authors is an easier decision for editors and reviewers to make- a safer bet. That may be a correct decision most of the time. However, DBPR reduces potential bias and may encourage the peer-review process to become (even) more intellectually rigorous. This can only broaden the spectrum of research available to the readership, uncover a wider range of ideas, pose greater challenges to established paradigms and theoretical perspectives, and thus facilitate advancement.