The process of peer review is a central element of the scholarly communication process. Peer review follows a traditional model for traditional journal publishing. But what do you do when you disrupt the journal model and the journal output is a micropublishing output? Do you continue with the same peer review process or you do something different?

At Cambridge University Press, we are thrilled to announce the launch of a ground-breaking innovative journal, Experimental Results, with open research coded within the DNA of its design. 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.

The journal will launch as open access, contain open peer review, and be linked to open data where possible.

As a micropublication, we are cognisant of the difficulties around both procuring peer reviewers, and ensuring that those reviewers are rewarded for the enormously important work that they do. Given the outputs for this journal are small snippets of research, we felt there was an imperative for reviewers to concentrate on very specific judgements on whether an experiment has been carried out correctly with the proper controls and whether the research answers a valid research question. It is with this in mind that we created an easy to use scorecard for the reviewer to answer. The scorecard is comprised of some basic elements that are used to decide whether the research is acceptable for publication, followed by a range of weighted options on other elements, resulting in a score graphic. In order for the research article to be accepted, it must be accepted by at least two reviewers, with the whole process overseen by a reviewing editor.

How do we ensure reviewers are given the credit they deserve for their output?

All reviews contain the name of the reviewer, will come with their own DOIs, and be published with the article in question. This enables the reviewer to collate and collect those reviews to demonstrate the vital work they do as part of their academic record. Furthermore, reviewers will be given a discount off the full APC, up to a maximum of two discounts per article, further incentivising the review process in a beneficial way for all parties involved.

Our goal is to be progressive, to ensure that those research outputs are correctly reviewed, and to ensure that those reviewers we rely so heavily on, are rewarded. This makes sense, much like the journal itself makes sense in its reflection of the actual research process. We acknowledge that there is even more to do to make scholarly communication more open and our goal is that this journal will develop along all paths that support open research. There are known issues with the scholarly communications process, but so much of it is wonderfully collegiate and supported by the amazing research community with whom Cambridge University Press shares a core mission – to enable research, to enable discovery, to solve those challenging scientific problems.  We want to work closely with the research community to find better ways of making scholarly communication work better. We hope the launch of this journal demonstrates our willingness to engage in this process and experiment with new journal models and new ways of doing things. I hope you will be as enthused by this venture as we are.