I prefer the the double blind, because it's best for all.

I definitely prefer double blind review. It takes out the possibility of bias and conflicts.

Me too, i do prefer double blind review.

For sure, I prefer the double blind review.

To be sure i prefer double blind revlew

In according to Babu Noushad , I prefer double blind.

I prefer the the double blind, because it's best for all.

Double blind indeed

I would agree double-blinded. However, as an editor, manuscripts that I review are done single blindedly. Once as a reviewer, I received a manuscript to review from someone in my same facility. It as a bit akward and I discussed it to the editor.

Double blinded is good but ultimately depend upon the Policy of Journal

Double blind would be definitely better .

I would prefer an open review process. I understand that blind reviews are intended to protect the reviewer If one disagrees with the comments. However, i think it would be more helpful If one could openly discuss instead of waiting months to get a reply by the reviewer.

Double blind may sound good in theory. However, most of the time it is easy to determine who are the authors if one checks the references of the article.

Also, some reviewers may propose to reference/cite their own articles.

As a journal editor, I think each one has its own pros and cons. A key point is how to find good, if not best, potential reviewers and then have them review the manuscript without declining.

Double blind review is said to be the best practice in reviewing process. A reviewer for journal manuscripts should unbiased and impartial.

Open review

I’d rather it was double-blind, and all names of reviewers contributing over a year being acknowledged by the editor-in-chief, in a special published note.

I think double-blined process is better and would be effective.

I support open review process. We scientists are supposed to be receptive to constructive critics. After all the purpose of the review is to improve and alert authors to any unnoticed errors or deficiencies. And finally , the ultimate goal is to end up with a quality publication.

In my point of view, Double blind is more effective way to review journals manuscript.

Iprefer double blind

I still support the open review process such as the reviewers names can only be disclosed upon publication of the manuscript, otherwise their names should not be disclosed.