Open peer review

Experimental Results will operate open peer review for full transparency about decision-making and in order to mitigate issues that contribute to editorial bias, and to enable reviewers to collect their contributions as part of their academic record. Authors will know who has reviewed their submission, with accepted manuscripts being published with their review reports; these reports will include the reviewer name, their ORCID ID, and be assigned an individual DOI. 

Open peer review does not mean that reviewers should contact authors directly, or that authors should contact reviewers. All queries should be directed through Priyanka Comar (Editor).

Appeals Process

Appeals of editorial decisions will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and must be based on evidence that either (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised. In general, only one appeal per manuscript per decision stage will be considered. 

To make an appeal against an editorial decision please send a rebuttal letter to experimentalresults@cambridge.org. Your letter should include details of your manuscript (title, author details, manuscript number) and explain clearly why you disagree with the editorial decision. If reviewer reports were included with the editorial decision, then these criticisms must be responded to in the rebuttal letter.

The journal Editor will consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case by case basis and the Editor's decision is final. If successful, an appeal can lead to the article’s re-entering the peer review process. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.

New submissions to the journal take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time to reach a conclusion about your appeal.