Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): Peer review: a process undergoing a required transformation

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

Ernest Abadal
University of Barcelona
Remedios Melero
IATA-Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos

Published 2022-12-19


  • Spain,
  • Open peer review,
  • Academic journal,
  • Open science,
  • Academic editors,
  • Barriers,
  • Drivers
  • ...More

How to Cite

Abadal , Ernest, and Remedios Melero. 2022. “Open Peer Review: The Point of View of Scientific Journal Editors”. JLIS.It 14 (1):60-70. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-507.

Funding data


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.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Abadal, Ernest and Lúcia Da-Silveira. 2020. “Open peer review: otro paso hacia la ciencia abierta por parte de las revistas científicas.” Anuario ThinkEPI 14. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02
  2. Bernal, Isabel and Juan Román-Molina. 2018. ”Encuesta sobre la evaluación por pares y el módulo ‘open peer review’ del repositorio Digital-CSIC.” http://hdl.handle.net/10261/167425
  3. Burley, Rachel. 2017. "Lessons learned from open peer review: a publisher’s perspective". SpringBoard blog. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/blog/blogposts/lessons-learned-from-open-peer-review--a-publisher-s-perspective/16123780
  4. Delikoura, Eirini and Dimitrios Kouis. 2021. “Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece.” Publications 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014
  5. Martin, Paul Eve, Cameron Neylon, Daniel Paul O'Donnell, Samuel Moore, Robert Gadie, Victoria Odeniyi, and Shahina Parvin. 2021. Reading Peer Review: PLOS ONE and Institutional Change in Academia. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  6. Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro and Maria das Graças Targino. 2017. “Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da ciência da informação.” Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, XVIII ENANCIB. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/104007
  7. González-Teruel, Aurora, Alexandre López-Borrull, Gema Santos-Hermosa, Francisca Abad-García, Candela Ollé, Rocío Serrano-Vicente. 2022. “Drivers and barriers in the transition to open science: the perspective of stakeholders in the Spanish scientific community.” Profesional De La Información, 31 (3). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.may.05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.may.05
  8. Hamilton Daniel G., Hannah Fraser, Rink Hoekstra, and Fiona Fidler. 2020. “Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.” Elife 9 (e62529). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529
  9. Melero, Remedios. 2022. Questions corresponding to the online survey of the article “Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6922431 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511
  10. Melero, Remedios, Juan-José Boté-Vericad and Alexandre López-Borrull. in press. “Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain.” Learned Publishing
  11. Polka Jessica K. Robert Kiley, Boyana Konforti, Bodo Stern, and Ronald D. Vale. 2018. “Publish peer reviews.” Nature 560: 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w
  12. Ross-Hellauer Tony. 2017. “What is open peer review? A systematic review”. F1000Research 6 (588). doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  13. Ross-Hellauer Tony, Arvid Deppe and Birgit Schmidt. 2017 “Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers”. PLoS ONE 12 (12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
  14. Segado-Boj, Francisco, Juan Martín-Quevedo and Juan-José Prieto. 2017. “Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics”. Ibersid 12 (1): 27-32. https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/article/view/4407 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54886/ibersid.v12i1.4407
  15. Segado-Boj, Francisco, Juan Martín-Quevedo and Juan José Prieto. 2018. “Attitudes toward Open Access, Open Peer Review, and Altmetrics among Contributors to Spanish Scholarly Journals”. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50 (1): 48-70. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/707432 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08
  16. Spinak, Ernesto. 2018. “Sobre las veintidós definiciones de la revisión abierta por pares… y más.” SciELO en perspectiva. http://blog.scielo.org/es/2018/02/28/sobre-las-veintidos-definiciones-de-la-revision-abierta-por-pares-y-mas/
  17. Targino Targino, Maria das Graças, Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia, and Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da Silva. 2019. “Avaliadores da área de ciência da informação frente à open peer review”. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología 43 (1). doi 10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3
  18. Thelwall, Mike, Liz Allen, Eleanor-Rose Papas, Zena Nyakoojo, and Verena Weigert. 2021. “Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model.” Journal of Information Science 47(6): 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678
  19. Urbano, Cristóbal, Sara Tafalla,Ángel Borrego, and Ernest Abadal. (2021). "Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands-on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019". Learned Publishing 34(4): 558-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1402
  20. Wang, Peiling, Sukjin You, Rath Manasa, and Dietmar Wolfram. 2017. “Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers”. Journal of Data and Information Science 1 (4): 60-80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625
  21. Wolfram, Dietmar, Peiling Wang, Adam Hembree, and Hyoungjoo Park. 2020. “Open peer review: Promoting transparency in open science”. Scientometrics 125(2): 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4
  22. Zhang, Don C., Rachel Williamson Smith, and Sheryl Lobo. 2020. “Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13(1): 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.5