Blind leading the sighted

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2007, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4-6. In a comparison with the review process in Behavioral Ecology (BE) and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (BES), two similar journals, an interesting trend emerges. BE favours a double-blind review process, where both author and reviewers are not identified, whereas BES prefers the traditional single-review process, where the author does not know the reviewer. The result is that in the double-blind review, a "7.9% [increase] in the proportion of female first-authored papers", and further, "represents a 33% increase in the representation of female authors". The standard single-blind review process may be a now quantifiable "bias" impeding "the progress of women to more advanced professional stages". Critics of the double-blind review note the increased administrative load that this policy engages in, and that in fact, they believe they are able to identify the authors anyways. The latter is in fact incorrect, and as the authors of this study show, with the former, who cares. "The ... compelling issue is whether double-blind review makes a difference" towards achieving a more unbiased policy. It does. So, why aren't more journals implementing this policy?