What’s in a name? A critique of author masking in the peer review process

The peer review process is upheld by the assumption that anonymity promotes fairness and integrity, with blinded review being the most common way to achieve this anonymity. Author masking, where authors replace their self-citations with boilerplate language to hide any connections (e.g., [Author, 2025] instead of [Smith, 2025]), is one step of blinding. Masking, however, might limit the review process more than it upholds anonymity. This paper critiques the unintended consequences of author masking within blinded review systems, arguing that it undermines fairness and anonymity. Using the Theory of Selected Attention framework, we argue that masking paradoxically makes authors potentially easier, not more difficult, to identify. We propose ending author masking within the Communication discipline to allow for more equitable reviews

Art · Epistemology · Literature · Peer review · Political science · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Computer Science · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · scientometrics and bibliometrics research