About Experimental Results
Experimental Results is an Open Access journal providing a forum for experimental findings that disclose the small incremental steps vitally important to experimental research; experiments and findings which have so far remained hidden. Such results often go unpublished due to the traditional scholarly communication process, in which only a select group of experiments are chosen to make up the narrative of a single paper.
Articles for consideration in Experimental Results include validation and reproducibility of existing findings, null results, supplementary findings, improvements or amendments to published results, as well as results that could be of importance, but for whatever reason, the researcher has not followed a particular line of questioning to produce a full narrative for a traditional paper. Where applicable, work published in Experimental Results will clearly link back to the related article.
Experimental Results will publish 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. Articles will be accepted for publication if they are technically and methodologically sound and if the research reported answers a valid research question.
Article processing charges
For all articles submitted for publication in Experimental Results in the first six months from launch, Cambridge University Press will waive the APC for all authors.
From February 2020 onwards, an APC of £700 will apply to all new submissions that go on to be accepted, with a waiver scheme for eligible countries - see here for more details on our waiver policies. Authors who have carried out a peer review will be able to claim £150 discount on the APC, up to a maximum of 2 peer reviews (i.e. a maximum discount of £300).
The decision whether to accept an article for publication will rest solely with the Editors, and without reference to the funding situation of the authors.
Please note: APC collection is managed by RightsLink, who will contact authors following acceptance of their article.
All new submissions should be submitted online via the journal’s ScholarOne site.
Experimental Results will publish short research articles. All Experimental Results articles must contain the following sections and follow the length limits:
- Title, authors and affiliations
- Keywords: (minimum 3, maximum 5)
- Abstract: (150 words max) should summarize the background, findings, and implications of the work.
- Introduction (150 word limit)
- Objective (100 word limit)
- Methods (150 word limit)
- Results (150 word limit)
- Discussions (100 word limit)
- Conclusions (100 word limit)
- Figures (maximum 4)
- References (maximum 10)
- Funding Information (see funding information section for more information)
For all types of articles, please make sure the manuscript is presented with figures incorporated in roughly the correct place if possible, with legends. Also please submit a document with numbered lines. All these requests are made to facilitate the reviewing process.
Figures and tables
For guidance on producing figures and tables, please visit the Cambridge Journals Artwork Guide.
References and citations should be formatted correctly in journal style when the article is submitted to the journal but formatting is not grounds for rejection at the submitting phase.
References in text should be cited by the author(s) surname(s) and the year of publication (e.g. Smith, 2012). References with two authors should be cited with both surnames (e.g. Smith and Wright, 2013). References with three or more authors should be cited with the first author followed by et al. (in italics; e.g. Smith et al.).
The references section should be in numerical order. Examples follow:
- 1. Ramos E, et al. Pharmacogenomics, ancestry and clinical decision making for global populations.Pharmacogenomics Journal 2014; 14: 217-222.
- 2. Capewell P, et al. A co-evolutionary arms race: trypanosomes shaping the human genome, humans shaping the trypanosome genome. Parasitology. Published online: 26 June 2014. doi:10.1017/S0031182014000602.
- 3. Sandhu M. Building a forum for global health, epidemiology and genomics. Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics 2015; 1: e1.
‘Unpublished observations’ and ‘personal communications’ may not be used as references, although references to written, not oral, communications may be inserted (in parentheses) in the text. Include among the references articles accepted but not yet published, or published online only (please supply Digital Object Identifier [DOI] reference, if known); designate the journal and add ‘(in press)’. For in press citations, an acceptance letter from the publisher will be required. Information from manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted should be cited in the text as ‘unpublished observations’.
The references must be verified by the author(s) against the original documents.
Please follow the APA citation style.
All of the data (including original and archival data) used in a paper must be appropriately cited. Citations to data must include information that will make it easy for readers to find the original data sources, and for those original sources to be consistently identified in the future. Data citations should not appear in the paper’s author note, acknowledgements, text, footnotes, tables, figures, or supplementary materials. Rather, data citations must appear in the paper’s reference list, and contain the name or title of the dataset, the author or authors, any version information, the date of creation of the version used in the paper, and most importantly a persistent data identifier (for example a DOI).
Bullock, Will, Kosuke Imai, Jacob Shapiro, "Replication data for: Statistical analysis of endorsement experiments: Measuring support for militant groups in Pakistan", http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/1... V5 [Version], September 5, 2011.
Monogan, Jamie, "Replication data for: A Case for Registering Studies of Political Outcomes: An Application in the 2010 House Elections", http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/1... V6 [Version], June 3, 2013.[AP2]
These would be cited in the text of the paper as Bullock et al. (2011) and Monogan (2013) respectively.
Experimental Results encourages the sharing of resources through repositories that make content as Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) as possible. Wherever possible, authors are encouraged to use repositories that:
- Are committed to the long-term preservation and accessibility of their content.
- Are supported and recognised by the community as appropriate for the resources they hold.
- Provide stable, unique identifiers for the information they hold.
- Support linking between their database records and associated published research articles.
- Allow free public access to their holdings, with reasonable exceptions (such as administration charges for the distribution of physical materials).
If there are domain-specific, specialised repositories in common use in your research community, we recommend using those to share resources. Generalist repositories, which can host a wide variety of data types, may also be used if no appropriate specialised repository exists. Examples of general repositories include Zenodo, Figshare, Dataverse, Dryad, and the Open Science Framework. Guidance for preparing qualitative data for sharing is provided by bodies such as the Qualitative Data Repository and ICPSR.
We recommend and encourage you to deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where protocols can be assigned their own persistent digital object identifiers (DOIs).
To include a link to a protocol in your article:
- Describe your step-by-step protocol on protocols.io
- Select Get DOI to issue your protocol a persistent digital object identifier (DOI)
- Include the DOI link in the Methods section of your manuscript using the following format provided by protocols.io: http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.
- At this stage, your protocol is only visible to those with the link. This allows editors and reviewers to consult your protocol when evaluating the manuscript. You can make your protocols public at any time by selecting Publish on the protocols.io site. Any referenced protocol(s) will automatically be made public when your article is published
On submission, authors will need to select one of the broad subject categories below for their paper:
- Life Science and Biomedicine
- Earth and Environmental Science
- Psychology & Psychiatry
- Physics & Astronomy
- Mathematics, Statistics & Probability
- Computer Science
On submission, authors will need to select one or more of the below experiment types for their paper:
- 1. Replication
- 2. Negative result
- 3. Novel result
- 4. Supplementary result
The sections below must be included. These statements should be included at the end of the manuscript, before the References section.
You may acknowledge individuals or organisations that provided advice, support (non-financial). Formal financial support and funding should be listed in the Financial Support section (see below).
A short statement should be provided indicating how each author contributed to the work. For example: AB and CD conceived and designed the study. CD and EF conducted data gathering. GH performed statistical analyses. AB, EF and GH wrote the article.
Please provide details of the sources of financial support for all authors, including grant numbers. For example, "This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number XXXXXXX)". Multiple grant numbers should be separated by a comma and space, and where research was funded by more than one agency the different agencies should be separated by a semi-colon, with 'and' before the final funder. Grants held by different authors should be identified as belonging to individual authors by the authors' initials. For example, "This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (A.B., grant numbers XXXX, YYYY), (C.D., grant number ZZZZ); the Natural Environment Research Council (E.F., grant number FFFF); and the Australian Research Council (A.B., grant number GGGG), (E.F., grant number HHHH)".
Where no specific funding has been provided for research, please provide the following statement: "This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors."
As a leading publisher of scholarly journals, Cambridge University Press is committed to meeting high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. Our ethical standards and procedures set out general expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and partners.
Experimental Results and Cambridge University Press take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of articles published in the journal. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked using duplication-checking software. Where an article is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article (removing it from the journal); taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author’s institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; banning the author from publication in the journal, or appropriate legal action.
Experimental Results considers all manuscripts on the strict condition that:
- 1. The manuscript has been submitted only to the journal - it is not under consideration, accepted for publication or in press elsewhere. Manuscripts may be deposited on pre-print servers;
- 2. All listed authors know of and agree to the manuscript being submitted to the journal; and
- 3. The manuscript contains nothing that is abusive, defamatory, fraudulent, illegal, libellous, or obscene.
Text taken directly or closely paraphrased from earlier published work that has not been acknowledged or referenced will be considered plagiarism. Submitted manuscripts in which such text is identified will be withdrawn from the editorial process.
Where research involves human and/or animal experimentation, the following statements should be included (as applicable): "The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008." and "The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional guides on the care and use of laboratory animals."
Cambridge University Press is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organization that provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publications ethics and how to handle cases of misconduct. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on research and publications ethics. For further information on Cambridge's Ethical Guidelines, please visit these pages: Publication Ethics and Ethical Standards.
If you have any concerns about the publishing ethics or research integrity of a paper published in Experimental Results, please contact email@example.com – we follow COPE’s guidelines for misconduct allegations made directly or on social media. If you are the author of the paper and would like to appeal an editorial decision or make a complaint, please can you direct this to Alison Paskins (Commissioning Editor).
Conflict of Interest
Experimental Results requires authors and reviewers to complete a conflict of interest declaration. We will be unable to publish the manuscript or review without this.
Conflicts of Interest are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on an author’s presentation of their work. They may include, but are not limited to, financial, professional, contractual or personal relationships or situations.
Conflicts of Interest do not necessarily mean that the manuscript or review has been compromised. Authors and reviewers should declare any real or perceived Conflicts of Interest in order to be transparent about the context of their review.
Authors must include the conflict of interest declaration in their manuscript.
If the manuscript has multiple authors, the author submitting the manuscript must include Conflicts of Interest declarations relevant to all contributing authors.
Example wording for a Conflicts of Interest declaration is as follows: “Conflicts of Interest: Author A is employed at company B. Author C owns shares in company D, is on the Board of company E and is a member of organisation F. Author G has received grants from company H.” If no Conflicts of Interest exist, the declaration should state “Conflicts of Interest: Author A and Author B declare none”.
Reviewers must provide a conflict of interest declaration when submitting their review in ScholarOne, detailing any competing personal, professional or financial interests that could be perceived as an influence on evaluating the work under review, or confirming that no such competing interests exist by entering the response Reviewer declares none.
Example wording for a Conflicts of Interest declaration is as follows: “Reviewer is employed at company B/owns shares in company D/ is on the Board of company E/is a member of organisation F/ has received grants from company H.” If no Conflicts of Interest exist, the declaration should state “Reviewer declares none”.
Experimental Results requires that all corresponding authors and reviewers identify themselves using ORCID when submitting a manuscript or reviewing a manuscript for the journal. Joining ORCID is fast, free and you do not need to have a current affiliation. ORCID provides a unique identifier for researchers and, through integration in key research workflows such as publication and grant applications, provides the following benefits:
- Discoverability: ORCID increases the discoverability of your publications, by enabling smarter publisher systems and by helping readers to reliably find work that you’ve authored.
- Convenience: As more organisations use ORCID, providing your ID or using it to register for services will automatically link activities to your ORCID profile, and will save you re-keying information multiple times.
- Keeping track: Your ORCID profile is a neat place to record and display (if you choose) validated information about your research activities.
If you don’t already have an ID, you can register for one directly from your user account on ScholarOne or via https://orcid.org/register. If you already have an ID, please use this when submitting by linking it to your ScholarOne user account. Simply log in to your account using your normal username and password. Edit your account by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen and from the dropdown menu, select 'E-Mail / Name'. Follow the instructions at the top of the screen to update your account.
For more information on ORCID please visit: https://www.cambridge.org/using-ORCID
Author Language Services
Cambridge recommends that authors have their manuscripts checked by an English language native speaker before submission; this will ensure that submissions are judged at peer review exclusively on academic merit. We list a number of third-party services specialising in language editing and/or translation, and suggest that authors contact as appropriate. Use of any of these services is voluntary, and at the author's own expense.