The transition from single-blind to double-blind peer review in academic publishing was intended to mitigate the "Matthew Effect," a phenomenon where disproportionate credit is assigned to researchers who are already famous or affiliated with prestigious institutions. Under single-blind protocols, reviewers are aware of the author's identity, which proponents of double-blind review argue introduces a systemic bias that disadvantages early-career scholars and those from less-prominent regional universities. Initial studies of the double-blind format, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, indicated a measurable increase in the acceptance rates of papers authored by women and minority groups. Nevertheless, some critics argue that the double-blind system is fundamentally performative, as the specialized nature of high-level research often allows reviewers to identify authors through self-citation patterns or specific methodological signatures. Furthermore, opponents suggest that knowing an author's identity provides essential context regarding the reliability of the data, especially in fields where laboratory reputation is a proxy for experimental rigor. Thus, while double-blind review addresses overt status bias, it may simultaneously obscure qualitative nuances that some editors consider vital to the vetting process.