01507nas a2200229   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001200043653001600055653001700071653000900088653002200097653001700119100001900136700002100155245007400176856017000250300001200420490000700432520081300439022002501252       2021                            d  c2021/0710apeer review10adouble-blind10aopen10ascientific method10asingle-blind1 aNatalie Shoham1 aAlexandra Pitman00aOpen versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?  uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/open-versus-blind-peer-review-is-anonymity-better-than-transparency/806BE7B64DD3FB21340F8DEA2790CCC3  a247-2540 v273 aPeer 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.  a2056-4678, 2056-4686