> In his brilliant career, the only time his work was subjected to blind peer review – the authors don’t know the reviewers and vice versa - he showed contempt

> In his brilliant career, the only time his work was subjected to blind peer review – the authors don’t know the reviewers and vice versa - he showed contempt for what is now the gold standard of science ... The story reminds us that double-blind peer review is only a relatively recent invention. I believe the author has confused anonymous (or "single blind") peer review with double blind peer review. That is, I don't think the Einstein-Rosen paper was subject to double blind peer review, which didn't really come into use for another ~20 years, and in sociology. Double blind peer review is not the gold standard for peer review. It is the gold standard for medical trials. I suspect the author has confused the two. > He then send it to a reviewer for comments – his selected reviewer was probably the famously gossipy Howard Percy Robertson, one of Einstein’s colleagues at Princeton. "Probably"? What is the source for this doubt? http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee/courses/g503/Einstein_review.pdf http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee/courses/g503/Einstei... is a copy of the September 2005 Physics Today article on the topic. It shows a copy of the Physical Review logbook. The caption for Figure 5 is: """The Einstein–Rosen article was received by the journal on 1 June 1936. After a delay of more than a month, John Tate sent a referral to Howard Percy Robertson on 6 July, finding him in Moscow, Idaho, on vacation after a sabbatical at Caltech. Robertson returned the manuscript and his review to Tate on 17 July. Six days later the package was sent back to Einstein."""