Is single-anonymized review a problem?

A reader writes in,

If possible, I would like to ask you and other readers to share some thoughts about the single-blind review policy (= reviewers are aware of the author’s identity but not vice versa). Recently, I noticed that one influential journal adopted such a policy. To be honest, I do not see any benefit from this practice. On the contrary, it seems to me that it is intentionally designed to filter submissions on grounds that are not philosophically relevant. For instance, there is a strong possibility that one can get rejected based on the religious pedigree of hers/his institution, as well as one can get rejected based on the place of living/working and hers/his personal beliefs, public service, membership in some association, etc. Obviously, the same reasons that worked against someone might help someone else. I suspect some sort of snobbish gatekeeping also might be a hidden intention behind such a policy. Or am I simply missing the point?

I don't know of many philosophy journals that practice single-anonymized review, but my understanding is that it is pretty common in the sciences. Is the practice problematic? The empirical evidence suggests so. Various studies and experiments have found that disclosing authors' names in peer review has an "astonishing" influence on peer-reviewers, benefitting famous names and authors from prestigious institutions, while hindering newcomers from publishing. 

So, why is single-anonymized review still practiced at some venues? Proponents may argue that single-anonymized review has some advantages, particularly in the sciences (where reviewers may be able to spot conflicts of interest, for example), and that so long as other forms of peer-review are practiced, including at other journals, then diversity in peer-review practices may be a good thing--particularly if authors can always choose to send their work to double or triple-anonymized journals. 

But these are just a few thoughts. What do you all think?

Comments

[academic migrant]

Only benefit I can think of is that this probably reduces review time, but for obviously wrong reasons, e.g. making sure people of certain backgrounds get super quick rejections based on stereotypes and biases.