The discussion centers on the implications of adopting a double-blind peer review process in scientific publishing, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. It highlights that while double-blind review aims to reduce bias, it poses significant challenges, particularly in fields with small research communities where authorship can often be inferred from references and experimental details. Participants argue that knowing the authors can enhance the review process by providing context about the researcher's reliability and past work. Many express skepticism about the feasibility of double-blind reviews, citing that it could hinder the efficiency of the review process and potentially diminish the quality of evaluations. Concerns are raised about the impact on the arXiv and the necessity of knowing author identities to assess novelty and relevance effectively. The conversation also touches on the potential benefits for less-known authors who might gain a fairer evaluation, but ultimately concludes that the current system, while imperfect, may be more practical for most scientific fields.
