However, Prior research has investigated the benefits and costs of even when reviewers self-report as having the highest level double-anonymous review (DAR, also known as double-blind of expertise in their field, their guess accuracy is no better review) in comparison to single-anonymous review (SAR) and than those who are self-reported as less knowledgeable [17]. Several review papers have attempted to Increased editor burden in handling conflict of interest, author compile experimental results in peer review research both burden in anonymizing the manuscript, and reviewer burden broadly and in engineering and computer science specifically in navigating prior work by others and by the authors are also [1-4]. This document summarizes prior research in peer review cited as costs to DAR. that may inform decisions about the format of peer review in Despite these challenges, numerous robotics conferences the field of robotics and makes some recommendations for have already made the shift to DAR, including RSS and a potential next steps for robotics publications. Furthermore, top machine learning conferences such as NeurIPS and CoRL have II. The presence of gender bias and effect of DAR on such bias is a common concern in research into peer review but Based on the current literature, we find that the evidence the conclusions are varied. Many studies do conclude that in support of double-anonymous review is not sufficient to gender can disadvantage authors, particularly women [5, 6] conclusively recommend for implementation in robotics conferences and that DAR can reduce this bias [7].