Horbach et al.: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fqb5c
“Opting for double-anonymized peer review has far-reaching implications. It hinders the adoption of important open science practices, including fast dissemination through preprint servers, early sharing of protocols and data sets, and transparency about competing interests. As such, double-anonymized peer review impedes innovation in scholarly publishing. Crucial innovative developments such as preprinting, preprint peer review (2), the publish-review-curate model (3,4), and micro-publications (5) are all incompatible with double-anonymized peer review.”