Double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity

I make six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses over more transparent peer review practices: (1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental; (2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect; (3) author networks can be revealing; (4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors; (5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind; and (6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias. I offer an alternative approach that could provide a more transparent approach for improving scientific integrity and equity in publishing.