Editorial Peer Review and Open Science: An Exploratory Qualitative Study on Academic Reviewers’ Perceptions

Abstract

Open science has reshaped the production, evaluation, and circulation of scientific knowledge by challenging closed models of scholarly communication and promoting transparency, collaboration, accessibility, and social responsibility. In this context, editorial peer review occupies a strategic position because it remains one of the main mechanisms for validating scientific quality while also reproducing tensions related to anonymity, bias, editorial authority, and inequalities in academic participation. This study analyzes, from an exploratory qualitative approach, the experiences and perceptions of academic reviewers regarding editorial peer review in the context of open science and its potential contribution to the democratization of knowledge in Latin America. Data were collected through an open-ended qualitative questionnaire completed by fourteen academics with experience in editorial review process. The information was analyzed using thematic categorization based on ethics, transparency, quality, reviewer training, use of technologies and openness of the evaluative process.  Findings demonstrate a persistent appreciation of the double-blind model as a mechanism for protecting against conflicts of interest, while also revealing demands for greater work, and gradual forms of open or hybrid review. It is evident that the transition toward more open models of peer review requires changes in the practice and concepts that underpin academic culture, in order to strike a balance between ensuring scientific quality and the principles of openness that guide open science. The study concludes that the democratization of knowledge depends not only on open access to research outputs, but also on transforming the evaluative cultures that regulate scientific legitimacy.