Prepare for double-anonymized review without promising anonymity

1. Establish what the journal actually offers

Nature Portfolio currently describes double-anonymized review as an option at some titles, with manuscript anonymization assigned to authors. Check the specific journal and article type; its name or publisher alone does not establish the available option. Record the current page and the choice made in the submission form.

Make a small information map before changing files: what goes to the editor, what goes to reviewers, and what becomes public if the paper is published. Ask how supplements, reporting forms and revisions enter those paths. A policy label is useful only when the team understands its actual document handling. If a portal choice and the instructions appear inconsistent, save the question for the editorial office.

Reference: Nature Portfolio: peer-review policies

2. Create a separate reviewer bundle

The linked Nature checklist addresses manuscript and supplement identifiers, figures, file metadata, neutral self-citation and separate handling of author information and disclosures. Follow its specific instructions only when they apply to the destination. Do not delete information from the team’s master record merely to prepare a masked copy.

For a proposed internal workflow, nominate one person to assemble the reviewer files and another to inspect the exported result. Give the bundle a version label and keep a private mapping to the complete source. Mark every permitted omission so it can be restored where required later. Confirm that the copy still explains the study adequately; concealment is not a reason to fabricate methods or remove information essential to assessment.

Reference: Nature Portfolio: double-anonymized preparation checklist

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Run a fictional anonymization rehearsal

Assume a fictional team prepares an observational study for a journal that requests a separate title page. The reviewer PDF has no author names in its visible header. Its file properties still name the corresponding author, a supplement contains a laboratory logo, and a public repository displays the team. These are three planted clues in a teaching exercise, not results from an actual submission.

The team exports a new PDF with the unwanted author property removed and replaces the unnecessary logo in the supplement. The repository question remains open: access is needed to examine the analysis, and changing the link without checking it may break that access. The team records the unresolved issue and asks about an allowed review arrangement. It does not report that all three clues have been resolved.

4. Preserve the meaning of scientific details

Some information is both scientifically relevant and identifying. A rare setting, an existing protocol or a previous report may make a research group recognizable. Separate that tension from accidental clues such as an author field. The appropriate handling depends on the journal and the study; replacing a real institution with a misleading description is not an acceptable shortcut.

Read every edited passage with the corresponding complete version. Check that population, location where scientifically necessary, design, dates and disclosures still have a truthful representation. Keep relevant self-citations usable; a neutral reference should not become an absent source. Where a masked placeholder is permitted, maintain a restoration list so the accepted public version does not retain unexplained gaps.

5. Separate a policy rationale from an outcome claim

Removing direct identifiers changes the information supplied to a reviewer. It does not by itself demonstrate a reduction in bias or an improvement in review quality. Those are separate empirical questions needing an appropriate study, defined outcomes and a stated setting. This article reviews preparation policies and offers an original exercise; it does not compare review models experimentally.

If the journal evaluates its own process, define what it will measure before looking at results. A count of files containing names measures a preparation issue. A reviewer survey about inferred identities measures a different issue. Neither automatically measures the fairness of an editorial decision. Preserve denominators, missing responses and the limits of the chosen measure before using the result in a public claim.

6. Check the actual uploaded files

Inspect the portal-generated reviewer preview, when available, rather than relying only on the local source document. Confirm that the intended files occupy the intended submission fields and that the final upload has the same content as the inspected version. Repeat the check after revisions because comments, tracked edits and newly added supplements may change what the recipient sees.

Keep a dated handoff note naming the preparer, inspector, applicable instructions and unresolved questions. The corresponding author can then decide whether the package is ready to submit. The note supports a specific preparation decision; it neither certifies the research nor replaces the journal’s handling of confidentiality, reviewer selection and editorial assessment.

Questions for a practical final check

• Journal and article-type policy checked.
• Editor and reviewer files distinguished.
• Exported metadata and supplements inspected.
• Scientific meaning and relevant citations preserved.
• Unresolved identity clues recorded.
• Final uploaded bundle checked again.