Abstract : This article examines the issue of the respective knowledge of authors and reviewers: is it fairer to judge a manuscript in the full light of day, or hidden away from prying eyes? Should one know everything about the authors of a manuscript, or nothing at all? In short, does the anonymity of the reviewers and/or authors guarantee or prevent an objective assessment? It looks at how these became central issues for scientific journals between 1950 and 1970. It then examine how, from the 1980s onwards, a certain number of categories became stabilized, such as the "single blind" and "double blind" and "open review", which lay down the options available to journals and learned societies.