In the traditional peer review process, which type of review keeps the identity of the author confidential?

In the traditional peer review process, the type of review that keeps the identity of the author confidential is the single-blind review. In this model, the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know who their reviewers are. This system is designed to allow reviewers to provide candid feedback without fear of repercussion or bias from the authors.

The notion behind single-blind review is that it can encourage more honest evaluations, as reviewers might feel more comfortable expressing their true opinions about the manuscript if their identity is hidden. It helps to mitigate issues of favoritism or bias that might occur if the reviewer’s knowledge of the author's identity were to influence their critique.

Other review types provide different levels of anonymity and transparency. In a double-blind review, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other, while in an open review, the identities of both are disclosed. An anonymous review is often used interchangeably with single-blind, but the term can also imply a variety of other setups that may or may not guarantee anonymity for authors. Understanding these distinctions helps ensure transparency and rigor in the peer review process.