The title of this post is excessively melodramatic.
It isn't necessarily "corrupt" to reject double-blind peer review. In my experience, most scientists who are qualified to review a paper will be able to infer the name of the researcher behind it, based solely on the content.
This is particularly true in areas where software packages or novel algorithms come into play, because people tend to name their ideas for maximum recognition. It's silly to hide the name of the researcher when the paper refers to their pet algorithm a dozen times by name.
I agree that the post head is melodramatic. But I think perhaps you missed something in the article. As it pointed out, the kind of "easy guesses" you mention are far less likely to occur in broad fields, even if they are more likely in narrower fields. Besides, so long as the default "fail" state in a double-blind review is at least _no worse than_ the current "succeed" state of single-blind, I don't see why there would be an objection.
I confess that I've done a reasonable amount of graduate work, and I work at a well-known college (staff, not faculty), and I was genuinely surprised to learn that most reviews aren't double-blind. It seems to me to make more sense as the default option.
But again, I don't disagree that the submitter is hyping the situation with that head. The situation isn't necessarily "corrupt" -- but I can understand the inclination to interpret it that way.
I may have a bit of excessive taste for melodrama, please forgive.
In my experience, most scientists who are qualified to review a paper will be able to infer the name of the researcher behind it, based solely on the content.
Your point isn't just anecdotal, the original Nature editorial mentions a study: "Referees could identify at least one of the authors on about 40% of the papers, undermining the raison d'être for double-blinding."
But sexism is probably a problem with female names one doesn't recognize, not females whose work one is familiar with (anecdotal, but I'm sure I could find studies on prejudice/discrimination), so double-blind review would still help.
Still, we're talking on different premises: I think it's important both for publishers to strive for fairness in publishing and for researchers to demand a unceasing effort towards general progress in publishing. The real problem is a lack of dedication to thought about the best way to organize research, which, if I understand correctly, is the biggest value added by the journals. Why is it that the closest thing to thinking about organizing research on a macro level is one of Nature's 17 blogs (is it really just as important as the Avian Flu)?
Why is there so little thought about how it is we organize our research? Is it just because old business models stand in the way? Is it because those that benefit from the status quo have undue influence?
It isn't necessarily "corrupt" to reject double-blind peer review. In my experience, most scientists who are qualified to review a paper will be able to infer the name of the researcher behind it, based solely on the content.
This is particularly true in areas where software packages or novel algorithms come into play, because people tend to name their ideas for maximum recognition. It's silly to hide the name of the researcher when the paper refers to their pet algorithm a dozen times by name.