I don't like double blind review, because it makes it hard to build on your own research. Often when working towards a result you can publish at a "big" confere

I don't like double blind review, because it makes it hard to build on your own research. Often when working towards a result you can publish at a "big" conference or a "prestigious" journal you will publish these steps before your "big" publication. Now how do you refer to these steps in a double-blind review? You have to refer to it, and doing so means that either a) the reviewer knows exactly who you are, or b) the reviewer thinks that you add too little to that previous research which isn't yours. The only way out of this is not to publish any of your previous research until you are ready for the "big one" and that isn't good for anyone. So forget about double-blind, it just doesn't work. Neither does blind review work in my opinion, if you are making a decision that might effect my life in such a big way, I have the right to know who you are (maybe not in the real world, but in any kind of process designed to be fair). The only solution is to make the review process completely open and transparent.