@article{1616,
  keywords = {peer review, double-blind, open, scientific method, single-blind},
  author = {Natalie Shoham and Alexandra Pitman},
  title = {Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?},
  abstract = {Peer review is widely accepted as essential to ensuring scientific quality in academic journals, yet little training is provided in the specifics of how to conduct peer review. In this article we describe the different forms of peer review, with a particular focus on the differences between single-blind, double-blind and open peer review, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. These illustrate some of the challenges facing the community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers in relation to the process of peer review. We also describe other forms of peer review, such as post-publication review, transferable review and collaborative review, and encourage clinicians and academics at all training stages to engage in the practice of peer review as part of continuing professional development.},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {BJPsych Advances},
  volume = {27},
  pages = {247-254},
  month = {2021/07},
  issn = {2056-4678, 2056-4686},
  url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/open-versus-blind-peer-review-is-anonymity-better-than-transparency/806BE7B64DD3FB21340F8DEA2790CCC3},
  doi = {10.1192/bja.2020.61},
  language = {en},
}