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

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