This document discusses the peer review process used by various biomedical journals. It notes that authors generally prefer double-blind peer review, where the identity of both the author and reviewer are unknown, while editors prefer single-blind review. The document also examines issues like the number of reviewers, who serves as reviewers, review timelines, and reviewer rewards. It provides some examples of journals that take different approaches to peer review, such as PLoS ONE which practices open peer review. The document concludes by arguing that scientific papers were historically anonymous and that journals should consider adopting more open peer review practices.