Abstract
Evaluation processes of scientific and academic journals have been transformed in recent years due to the increase in both the number of journals and the volume of papers received. Furthermore, the use of Internet has generated a strong openness of science, with more and more open access journals. Editorial teams have had to adapt to this new setting and decide on an evaluation model. In this context, this paper presents the case of the evaluation system of the Spanish journal Encrucijadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales. This journal proposes an open peer review in which both authors and reviewers are known each other during all the evaluation process. We use a precoded semi-open questionnaire in order to analyze the opinion of both authors and reviewers about this type of evaluation. We conclude that there is an acceptance of the model of review by the two groups, although there are some slight differences by age, sex, and type of contribution.