Since June 2013, Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change have allowed authors to choose between double-blind and single-blind peer review at submission; early results from this trial have been described and discussed (Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 871–872, 2014). In short, the uptake of the double-blind method has been much lower than the enthusiasm expressed in surveys would have predicted—no more than a fifth of monthly submissions are going the double-blind route—but no substantial effects on the quality of reviews have been detected.

It's funny that they don't discuss the reasoning behind authors declining double-blind. If you are an influential name in the field, double-blind works against you. For that reason, double-blind shouldn't be an option. It doesn't correct for bias sought by the author that works in the author's favor.

Of course, double-blind can't be perfect, but it is an improvement upon a process that is fraught with the influence of personal bias. The degree of voluntary participation is a poor measure, scientific quality is what we are after.