“Experimental Results is a brilliant idea! There is a growing number of open access journals with transparent review processes, but Experimental Results stood out given the priority for short papers reporting on ‘small chunks’ of data. Following a publication in premier journal with a restrictive word count, we were left with a small but critically important ‘chunk’ of results that warranted publication. Indeed, these results – which have major implications for the measurement of autistic personality traits – were arguably more important than the original study. This situation seemed perfect for Experimental Results. We have been delighted with the editorial process and pleased that our paper is one of the first in this exciting new journal.”
Punit Shah (University of Bath, UK)
Experimental Results is a great avenue to publish results that are important but not extensive enough for a full journal article. We have been able to quickly transform the results of a small study into a citable publication. This publication is proving to be useful for future studies within our research group, and to other scientists and resource practitioners who are now aware of the results and have primary literature to cite. The submission process is easy, and the turnaround time is fast.”
Terry Palmer (Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, US)
"Experimental Results is a new international journal that aims to publish novel and/or negative results in all areas of science. With no doubt, it is a great initiative from Cambridge University Press. Negative results are significant approaches; so, their divulgation will permit that other groups to not repeat/replicate these experiments. When I think in science, a negative result is, of course, a possibility. I hope that the new journal has a long life and excellent acceptance in the scientific community."
André Luis Souza dos Santos (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Classic, high-impact journals demand an amount of experimental work that is often unaffordable for small laboratories like mine. Furthermore, the interminable stories they publish, often with hundreds of pages under the epigraph of supplementary information that I personally find very difficult to read, let alone review with a decent degree of professionalism, demand unrealistic levels of internal consistency. This demand for unrealistic consistency in the universe of unknown information and contradictory data we researchers often find, in such a length of manuscripts, and in the context of the publish-or-perish policy we all abide to, is a sure path to the reproducibility crisis that science is currently experiencing.
Shorter stories allow smaller laboratories to publish relevant information and survive without sacrificing all their budget (and I hope the Editorial Board decides to keep them cheap). Shorter steps allow bigger internal consistency, and faster confirmation of irreproducible results. If these shorter articles also encourage the publication of negative or confirmatory results, more information will become available to make informed decisions about the paths we want to follow as researchers.
Experimental Results and other single-observation journals may not be the solution to the issues that modern science is facing, but they are interesting initiatives that I definitely support. They come to substitute the classic Letter/Short communication format, which are now neither letter-like nor short. Today´s Letters are the size of a classic Full Article.
Federico Herrera (University of Lisbon, Portugal)