Not so easy, actually. How do you write a manuscript that's completely detached from your previous work, of which it is probably an extension? It seems like to make this even possible, one has to only speak in passive voice, and not ever highlight one's previous accomplishments, accomplishments that likely give the manuscript credibility (not based on authorship, but on continuity). Nothing is published in a vacuum. I think this is commendable in theory, but will be very difficult to execute. We all have biases, and I will admit that if a paper comes across my desk from someone who I have a lot of respect for, as happens on occasion, I probably tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I like to think that the opposite isn't true, however, that I am intentionally harsh to anyone who I don't know. Who knows? At least being cognizant of bias can help to limit it.The responsibility for rendering the manuscript anonymous falls to the authors.