Blind Review: assessing applications with identifying information withheld

What is blind review?

Blind review removes the applicant's identity from what reviewers see. The proposal, budget and workplan are assessed; the name on the cover is not shown.

It is a procedural answer to a specific problem: reviewers who recognise a well-known organisation tend to score it more generously, and reviewers who recognise an unfamiliar one tend to read ambition as risk.

‍

What blind review does and does not fix

It reduces reputation bias, which is the effect it was designed for. Applications from small or first-time organisations get read on their content rather than against a track record the reviewer cannot see.

It does not make an application anonymous in practice. A proposal that names its local delivery partners, describes a site, or requests an unusual amount is often identifiable to a reviewer who knows the field — which is most reviewers worth having.

It also does not address the biases carried by the criteria themselves. A rubric that rewards polished English or prior grant experience will disadvantage the same applicants blind or not, because the disadvantage is written into what is being scored.

‍

When blind review is the wrong choice

When the applicant's track record is part of what is being funded. A capacity-building grant or a multi-year partnership turns on who the organisation is, and hiding that means scoring the proposal while ignoring the decision.

It is also a poor fit where due diligence and assessment happen together. If reviewers are expected to judge financial stability or governance, they need to see the organisation.

The workable middle ground is a two-stage process: a blind first pass on the proposal's merits, then a named second stage where the panel weighs capacity, history and risk with the identity revealed.

‍

Blind review in a grant platform

A grant management software platform can mask identifying fields for a defined review stage, then reveal them for the next one, without asking staff to redact documents by hand.

It also handles the part blind review does not cover: recording each reviewer's conflict of interest declaration, keeping scores hidden between members of a reviewer panel until the round closes, and logging who saw what and when.