Open peer review: the point of view of scientific journal editors

Abstract

Academic journals have been incorporating several elements of open science: open access (since 2000), later, the deposit of research data of the articles published, the dissemination of preprints before the publication of the paper and, finally, the open peer review (OPR). While open access is well-established and the inclusion of research data is increasingly widespread, the OPR is just at the beginning of its incorporation as a real alternative to the double-blind model, which is the most widespread and consolidated.
 The objective of our article is to analyse the opinion of the editors of Spanish scientific journals about the advantages and disadvantages or barriers for the implementation of the OPR. This is a qualitative study that has been carried out from the open answers of a questionnaire sent to the 1875 editors of the Spanish academic journals that appear in the database Dulcinea and that obtained a response of 22.4%. Regarding the limitations, the study is based on the opinions and experience of the editors of Spanish scientific journals, which are mostly published by academic institutions and are in the field of social sciences and humanities.
 The results focus on delving into the advantages and disadvantages. Among the encouraging factors, the editors point out that to have open reports is very useful for the scientific community, that it recognizes the role of the reviewer, makes it possible to control the arbitrariness of some reviewers, and that it promotes the reviewer-author dialogue. The main barriers discussed are the following: a possible lack of objectivity and rigor, resistance to change a consolidated system (“double-blind”), knowing the author benefits established authors and harms novices, more difficulties for finding reviewers, increases costs and can lengthen the review process.