Comment by 0_____0
2 days ago
This seems like an issue of administration rather than an issue with the idea of a double-blind review. If you conduct a review that isn't properly blinded, and doesn't have an observable effect, can it really be called a double blind review?
Maybe more that a non-idealistic model of the real world, and common direct experience, show that incentives strongly favor an administrative approach that compromises the double blind.
Unless there's a better way to do it, I this shows a need for better structures for governance and auditing of review boards... Information and science care not for our human folly, it's up to us to seek and execute them properly.