How can organizers choose the review blindness type?

Paige Watson

Updated on 10 March 2026

• Copy Link

PeerSubmit allows organizers to configure the level of anonymity used in the peer review process. Choosing the correct review blindness type ensures fairness, reduces bias, and aligns the review process with the conference’s academic policies.

Organizers can select between different review models such as Single-blind, Double-blind, or Open review depending on how much information is visible to authors and reviewers.

Step 1: Log in to Your PeerSubmit Account

Start by logging in to your organizer account.

• Open the PeerSubmit login page.
• Enter your registered email address and password.
• Click Login to access the dashboard.

Step 2: Open the Conference

Navigate to the conference where you want to configure the review mode.

• Go to All Conferences.
• Select the conference you want to manage.
• Open the Conference Dashboard.

Step 3: Open CFP Settings

Review blindness settings are configured inside the conference Call for Papers (CFP) configuration.

• Click CFP Settings from the sidebar.
• Navigate to the Review Settings section.

Step 4: Choose the Review Blindness Type

Select the review mode that matches your conference review policy.

• Single-blind Review – Reviewers can see the author’s identity, but authors cannot see reviewer identities.
• Double-blind Review – Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process.
• Open Review – Author and reviewer identities are visible to each other.

Step 5: Save the Settings

After selecting the desired review mode:

• Click Save to apply the changes.
• The selected review mode will apply to all submissions in the conference.

Choosing the Right Review Mode

• Single-blind review is commonly used when reviewer transparency is less critical.
• Double-blind review helps reduce bias and is widely used in academic conferences.
• Open review promotes transparency in the evaluation process.

Selecting the appropriate review blindness type helps maintain fairness and credibility in the conference peer review process.