To have biases is human, to fight them, while not divine, is at least worth attempting. In this spirit, Conservation Biology has implemented double-blind peer review, which means that authors do not know the identity of reviewers and reviewers do not know the identity of authors or their affiliations.
Authors, SCB members, the journal’s editors, and the SCB Board are overwhelmingly behind this change because they believe it is a credible step toward alleviating the perception of bias associated with the current system in which reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
Conservation Biology is the leading journal in its field, and double-blind review may increase submissions from underrepresented groups and early-career professionals. The voices of all people are needed to maintain conservation science’s momentum. Natural, physical, and social scientists alike support all initiatives such as the use of double-blind peer review that acknowledge and attempt to address intentional and unintentional bias. We acknowledge that it is not a perfect system, but double-blind review is favored by almost all of those involved in the publication of scholarly articles.