Shoham, N;
Pitman, A;
(2021)
Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?
BJPsych Advances
, 27
(4)
pp. 247-254.
10.1192/bja.2020.61.
Preview |
Text
Shoham_Open versus Blind Peer Review. Is Anonymity Better than Transparency_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Download (203kB) | Preview |
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.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency? |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1192/bja.2020.61 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.61 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Division of Psychiatry |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10108706 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
