In single-blind peer review, it’s just the reviewer. In double-blind, it’s both reviewer and author(s) with different levels of author blinding. Double-blind arguably reduces reviewer bias, but depending on the field and subject matter, once an author is recognizable, double-blinding doesn’t truly mask them.
I know this because I work for two single-blind peer-review journals, and we’ve received submissions formatted for double-blind review. We don’t bother because, like your field, ours is narrow, but there’s a lot of research, and we can’t publish all of it.
In single-blind peer review, it’s just the reviewer. In double-blind, it’s both reviewer and author(s) with different levels of author blinding. Double-blind arguably reduces reviewer bias, but depending on the field and subject matter, once an author is recognizable, double-blinding doesn’t truly mask them.
For you know of any journal/field that does double blind? Genuinely interested.
In my field, there are so few experts we can often know who was the reviewer based on their comments.
I know of several journals, such as this one… ONCOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND TRANSPLANTOLOGY https://www.onmtjournal.org/home/peer-review-policy
I know this because I work for two single-blind peer-review journals, and we’ve received submissions formatted for double-blind review. We don’t bother because, like your field, ours is narrow, but there’s a lot of research, and we can’t publish all of it.