Now we are in Volume Two of Experimental Results, our first journal with an open peer review model, it seems a good time to reflect on our reasoning for choosing the open peer review model, and reception from the author & reviewer community so far.

We launched Experimental Results with the aim of disrupting the traditional journal model – providing a forum for experimental findings that aren’t traditionally published, including papers covering validation and reproducibility of existing findings, null results, supplementary findings, and amendments to published results. All of which are sound research, but that doesn’t necessarily fit into the scope of a traditional journal, or a full narrative for a traditional paper.

Alongside this, we wanted to address the ongoing issues around scientific peer review:

• Reviewers traditionally spend a lot of time and investment reviewing papers, with limited recognition for their efforts.
• The traditional review process is anonymised and closed, with limited information shared on what happens behind ‘closed doors’.

With this in mind, we decided on an open peer review model for Experimental Results to:

• Enable reviewers to gain recognition and collect their contributions as part of their academic record; all reviews contain the names of the reviewer, and each review is assigned a DOI and is published alongside the article in question.
• Be quicker than traditional review, as reviewers complete an easy scorecard to assess whether the experiment was well conducted and designed, and the data is valid.
• Increase transparency about decision-making, with the aim of mitigating issues that contribute to editorial bias.

So, what has the reception from the author and reviewer community been so far?

We surveyed authors who published in Experimental Results in 2020. Of the respondents:

• 88% were aware that EXP had an open peer review process before they submitted, and 75% said this did not influence their decision. The main influencing decision around submission was that the journal had a short paper format.
• 56% believed that the open peer review contributed to their understanding of the article, and 69% believed that the feedback they received from reviewers was constructive
• All respondents indicated that openness improved the peer review process, 50% strongly agreed, 38% agreed and 13% somewhat agreed

We surveyed reviewers of papers published in Experimental Results in 2020:

• All respondents were aware that their review would be made open and signed
• 92% of respondents were happy with their name being published along with their review
• It seems that whilst there is still some caution around the open peer review model, many researchers are supportive, and there are clear benefits for both authors and reviewers. We will continue to collect author and reviewer feedback to guide us with decision making around the open peer review model going forwards – our next step is to survey researchers who decline to review for Experimental Results.

We are looking forward to the second volume of Experimental Results, and have already published a number of papers which can be viewed here.

Find out more about publishing your research in Experimental Results and follow us on Twitter @ExpResults.