A double-blind peer review trial is underway at Nature Publishing Group NPG, owner of Nature. Since then, Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change have offered double-blind peer review. In this article, we explore the effect of blinding on peer review outcomes, examining reviewer ratings and editorial decisions, and ask whether gender and/or location of the reviewer author influence the effects of the type of evaluation. Double-blind review reduced the average success of manuscripts during peer review, with articles reviewed with the identity of the author. Scientific peer review is the process by which reviewers examine a piece of research or manuscript in their area of expertise and decide on its acceptability for publication in a journal. or scientific approach. Ideally, peer review is impartial. Among the many peer review models, single-blind review is currently the most adopted model. Double-blind peer review is a process used by scientific journals in which the identity of the reviewer is hidden from the authors and vice versa. Journals generally require the removal of all author details in the manuscript, including self-citations, acknowledgments, and any associated properties attached to the manuscript file. Nature decided to add a double-blind peer review option – papers would be sent to reviewers without an author. names or institutional affiliation on them. I think it's a valid idea, but I agree with many points in this article published on Retraction Watch by David Vaux in Melbourne. A big potential problem is that double blind,