Double-blind peer review of research papers is a worthy idea but has two flaws in practice (Nature 518, 274; 2015).

First, most modern research builds on previous studies published by a limited number of groups. This makes it almost impossible to write a paper without revealing with near certainty who the authors are, even if they manage to avoid such giveaways as “we showed previously that ... (No Longer Anonymous et al., 2012)”.

The second flaw is more serious. To function in our increasingly competitive research culture, in which misconduct is on the rise, researchers need to be aware of which labs can be trusted and which have a record of irreproducibility. If a highly regarded lab and one with a questionable reputation each submit reports of similar investigations, a good reviewer would be extra vigilant in assessing the less-reliable lab's study, even though the same evaluation standards would be upheld for both.

Double-blind peer review removes this crucial quality-control option, opening the way for mediocre and bad labs to clutter the literature with sub-standard science.