This is the first of a series of interviews with people involved with our new Open Access journal, Experimental Results – a forum for short research papers from experimental disciplines across Science, Technology and Medicine, providing authors with an outlet for rapid publication of small chunks of research findings with maximum visibility.

Can you tell us a bit about your background, and what your current research is focused on?
I am an analytical chemist with crime lab experience. My research is focused on the development of sensors for the detection of controlled drugs, explosives, chemical and biological weapons.

What has been your biggest challenge/greatest achievement in your career so far?
Sometimes low tech analytical solutions are the most difficult to design. They often must be suitably specific, robust, inexpensive, field portable, with little-to-no power consumption. Meeting these specifications has been – and continues to be – challenging and rewarding.

Why did you decide to become a Reviewing Editor?
Publishing our work for review by our peers, and our engagement with our peers on our work, has tremendous value. It also requires a huge number of scientists join in the editorial process. Deepening my participation of the process is a type of professional service I feel has value. I also expect to learn a great deal by serving as a Reviewing Editor.

What excites you about Experimental Results? and How will Experimental Results benefit your research field?
This journal will publish “negative results” and I couldn’t be more excited! The things that did not “work” or did not “work” as expected are incredibly valuable to know. There are lots of scientists that have stories about trying a bunch of things, running into another expert in the field, and hearing “Oh, we tried that years ago… it doesn’t work.” Just think of the time and consumables we could save by sharing all our results!

Find out more about the journal, or submit your research here