How often can the reviewers correctly guess the identity of the authors when the review is double-blind? Is there any research/study/survey/dataset that looked at how often the reviewers correctly guess the identity of the authors when the review is double-blind?

I am aware that the answer is likely field-dependent, or even publication venue dependent. I am mostly interested in computer science, machine learning and natural language processing, but curious about other fields as well.
Conferences in programming languages are moving toward double-blind reviewing, and since the idea is debated, people are collecting some evidence, including actual peer-reviewed papers.

In particular, even when reviewers believe they guessed the authors, it turns out they are sometimes/often incorrect, as profmartinez’s answer suggests. In the citations you’ll find actual numbers; I won’t attempt a literature review myself.

Links


A short FAQ
This points to this literature review (done as an editorial in SIGMOD, a database venue):
This in turn cites Fisher et al. (1994), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association — hence, a peer-reviewed publication where reviewers understand statistics well:
There are also reports from program chairs evaluating statistically double-blind reviewing, by (for instance) surveying PC members for correctness of their guesses.