Dear editor, I have read the interesting article “The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future” by Drozdz and Ladomery [1]. The authors elegantly describe the various approaches to peer review during scientific article evaluation and how each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.

The authors alluded to “Double anonymous peer review,” which is characterized by “Neither party knows the identity of the other at any point during the process [2],” as they referred to in their detailed review. Furthermore, they mentioned that one of the claimed benefits of this approach for a peer-review process is the reduction of possible biases originating from revealing the author’s identity (gender, affiliation, and other possible identities that could induce unconscious bias) [2–5].

I was expecting the authors to discuss how “Double anonymous peer review” is breached by the authors (intentionally or unintentionally) under the section Problems Associated With the Peer Review Process, which might include one or more of the following:

1- Some journals oblige authors submitting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide the identity of their trial registration in one of the online registration databases (such as https://clinicaltrials.gov/). If the registration ID was presented in the “anonymized” or “blinded” version of the manuscript, the reviewers could quickly identify the authors and their details by checking the registration details.

In a scientific community overwhelmed by fraud, falsification, and questioned integrity, all possible actions must be followed to eliminate or minimize these dangers; one way to approach a fair and intact scientific research community is a sound peer review process, as explained in detail by Drozdz and Ladomery [1].

Although many peer review practices were suggested, and each has pros and cons, many scientists believe that the double anonymous peer review approach offers less bias as the reviewers do not know the author’s identity and vice versa. However, if it is breached by one of the abovementioned possibilities, it loses its main advantage.

Cooperation between the authors, the editorial team, and the reviewers is needed to ensure the integrity of the double-anonymous peer review process as follows:

1- The authors must follow the journal instructions and remove any information that could lead to their identification. They must also report if their manuscript was deposited in one of the preprint servers.

In conclusion, the double-anonymous peer review approach is vulnerable to breaches, which could be intentional or unintentional. To improve the efficiency of such a process, cooperation between the authors, editorial team members, and potential reviewers is needed to detect and inform about breaches of the manuscript’s anonymized presentation.