When embarking on mental health research it is often necessary to apply for approvals from one or more review bodies to ensure that the research is ethical and that the safety and well-being of participants are safeguarded. This can be complicated and time consuming, particularly to those unfamiliar with the process. In this article we describe the approvals commonly required for National Health Service-based research involving patients and endeavour to clearly explain what is involved at each stage. We then highlight some of the main considerations, including ethical aspects, which are particularly pertinent to conducting research in the field of mental health, and finish with general advice and considerations for future developments in the area.

Open access publishing has a dark side, the predatory publishers and journals that exist for revenue rather than scholarly activity. This article helps researchers to: (1) identify some of the commonly used tactics and characteristics of predatory publishing; and (2) avoid falling prey to them. In summary, authors should choose the journal for submission themselves and never respond to unsolicited emails. It is also important to check blacklists such as ‘Stop Predatory Journals’ and whitelists such the Directory of Open Access Journals.

Peer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge about the peer-review process. It will not only benefit those who are reviewers or thinking about becoming reviewers, but also authors, who can use the information to improve their chances of publication.

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.

Peer reviewing is a hugely important part of the scientific process that ensures published articles are of sufficient quality to deserve dissemination to the wider scientific community. Building on a previous article published in this journal, this article addresses topics that potential or practising peer reviewers may find useful. These include what peer reviewing is, why do peer reviews, how to become a reviewer, what to write in a review and where to find more information. It includes a template for writing a review, and lists various websites and guidelines that can help ease the entire process depending on what type of article is being reviewed. Peer reviewing can be enormously rewarding and help clinicians diversify their scope of work while also benefiting the scientific community by contributing to the quality control of published work.