Experimental Results Journal: Scopus Profile, Scope & Publication Guide

Quick Answer: What Was Experimental Results?

Experimental Results was a multidisciplinary open-access research journal published by Cambridge University Press. Cambridge described its purpose as providing a forum for experimental findings that often remain unpublished because conventional papers usually select a subset of experiments to support one larger narrative. The journal specifically welcomed positive results, negative or null results, reproducibility work and supplementary findings.

Its scope crossed Science, Technology and Medicine, with subject coverage in Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Life Science and Biomedicine, Mathematics, Statistics and Probability, Physics and Astronomy, and Psychology and Psychiatry. The journal’s editorial threshold emphasized whether research was technically and methodologically sound and whether it addressed a valid research question.

For researchers in 2026, however, the journal-selection conclusion is straightforward: Experimental Results is not currently an ordinary submission target because Cambridge marks it as ceased publication. Its archive can still help authors understand concise experimental reporting, open peer review, transparent declarations and the publication of null or replication findings.

Key Takeaways

• Publisher: Cambridge University Press.
• Online ISSN: 2516-712X; the supplied “ISSN 0” field should not be used as the bibliographic identifier.
• Scopus: the supplied source record is Scopus Source ID 21101104475; ISSN Portal coverage also lists Scopus.
• Current status: Cambridge Core labels the journal “Ceased publication.”
• Scope: short, methodologically sound experimental findings across eight broad STM subject groups, including null/negative findings and reproducibility work.
• Peer review: the journal used an open peer-review model with named, published review reports and DOI-linked review material.
• Historical 2024 Scopus metrics: a university journal browser reports CiteScore 2.3, SJR 0.209, SNIP 0.748 and Q2 in the Multidisciplinary CiteScore category; treat these as historical values.
• Submission decision today: select an active journal and verify its current scope, indexing, author instructions, fees and policies before submitting.

Journal Information at a Glance

What This Page Covers

• the journal’s identity, publisher, ISSN and publication status
• its original aims, scope and eight broad subject areas
• Scopus coverage and how to read historical metrics responsibly
• the journal’s open peer-review and research-transparency model
• the kinds of experimental findings represented in its archive
• what published papers suggest about manuscript structure and declarations
• why a ceased journal should not be treated as a current submission target
• how to use the archive to select and prepare for an active alternative journal

Methodology and Sources

This profile prioritizes the official Cambridge Core journal page, Cambridge’s description of the journal’s open peer-review model, article-level pages from the Experimental Results archive, the ISSN Portal record, and the supplied Scopus Source ID. A university journal-publishing guide was used only for dated 2024 Scopus metrics because a directly accessible Scopus metric panel was not available in the public search interface.

Journal facts can change, and historical databases sometimes update on different schedules. The most current publisher status therefore takes priority for submission decisions. Metrics are dated rather than presented as timeless facts, and no acceptance rate, current review duration, current APC or Journal Impact Factor is invented where an official current value could not be verified.

Why Experimental Results Was Different from a Conventional Research Journal

Most research journals are built around a complete story: a broad question, a sequence of experiments and a conclusion that creates a coherent narrative. Experimental Results was designed around a different scholarly problem—the reality that many valid experiments do not fit that model. An experiment may produce a null result, replicate an earlier finding, add a useful supplementary observation, or answer a small but legitimate methodological question without becoming a full conventional paper.

Cambridge’s journal description framed these incremental steps as scientifically valuable even when they were not the centerpiece of a larger narrative. That made the journal particularly relevant to open-science concerns such as publication bias, reproducibility and the invisibility of negative results. The editorial standard stated on Cambridge Core was methodological rather than sensational: the work needed to be technically and methodologically sound and address a valid research question.

For a researcher evaluating the archive, this distinction matters. The journal should not be read as evidence that small results require less rigor. Its concept was instead that a narrower result could still deserve a citable, peer-reviewed record when the method and question were sound.

Aims, Scope and Subject Areas

The journal’s central aim was to make experimental findings visible when they might otherwise remain in notebooks, repositories, theses or abandoned manuscript drafts. Cambridge explicitly included positive findings, negative or null results, reproducibility studies and supplementary findings. In practical terms, that created a home for research whose value lay in reliability, transparency and contribution to the experimental record rather than in constructing a large novelty-driven narrative.

Eight broad subject areas

Cambridge listed eight major subject groupings: Chemistry; Computer Science; Earth and Environmental Sciences; Engineering; Life Science and Biomedicine; Mathematics, Statistics and Probability; Physics and Astronomy; and Psychology and Psychiatry. This made Experimental Results multidisciplinary in subject reach but more specialized in the type of contribution it wanted: concise experimental evidence.

Examples visible in the archive

The archive demonstrates that “experimental” was interpreted broadly. Published papers include laboratory and behavioral studies, engineering and virtual-reality experiments, replication work in consumer psychology, mathematical and computational studies, biomedical and health-related analyses, environmental and agricultural work, and papers explicitly tagged as negative, supplementary or replication results. This breadth is consistent with the journal’s cross-STM positioning.

What may have been a weak fit historically

Based on the stated scope, a purely narrative literature review without an experimental result, a speculative opinion piece, or a manuscript whose central method was not technically defensible would not align naturally with the journal’s core purpose. Likewise, a researcher seeking to publish a large, fully integrated story might historically have preferred a discipline-specific journal designed for full-length conventional articles.

Scopus Indexing and Historical Journal Metrics

The journal’s Scopus identity is unusually important because many researchers encounter the title through a source list rather than through Cambridge Core. The supplied record gives Scopus Source ID 21101104475, and the ISSN Portal’s coverage information includes Scopus for ISSN 2516-712X. This supports the conclusion that Experimental Results has been covered in Scopus.

A university journal browser reports the following 2024 Scopus journal metrics: CiteScore 2.3, SJR 0.209, SNIP 0.748, and a Q2 position in the Multidisciplinary CiteScore category, with a 70th percentile ranking. These values are useful as a historical snapshot, not as a reason to submit now.

No current official Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor was verified for this guide. Scopus CiteScore, SJR and SNIP are not substitutes for a Clarivate Journal Impact Factor, and they should not be labeled as one.

Publication Status: What “Ceased Publication” Means for Authors

Cambridge Core now places a clear “Ceased publication” label on the Experimental Results journal page. For an author, that changes the journal-selection decision completely. The archive may remain online, indexed and citable, but an archived publication venue is not equivalent to an active journal accepting a routine stream of new manuscripts.

If a university requirement says “publish in a Scopus-indexed journal,” a researcher should not assume that a ceased title remains a valid new-submission option merely because its past articles are in Scopus. The relevant question is whether the journal is currently operating and whether the institution accepts its current status. For already published work, institutional evaluation may depend on the journal’s status and indexing at the time the paper appeared, the applicable policy and the database record.

Researchers who like the original Experimental Results concept should instead search for active journals that explicitly welcome negative results, replications, registered reports, short reports, methodological notes or open-science contributions. The current author instructions of the alternative journal—not the historical rules of Experimental Results—must then govern manuscript preparation.

What the Archive Shows About Article Types and Manuscript Structure

Cambridge’s journal homepage describes “short research papers,” while article-level records classify published content as research articles and label the result type where relevant, such as negative result, supplementary result or replication. This is a useful distinction: the formal article category can be “Research Article” while the scientific nature of the result is separately identified.

Published articles commonly contain a recognizable experimental structure: abstract, introduction, methods or materials and methods, results, discussion and/or conclusion. They also include post-research transparency sections such as data availability, authorship contributions, funding, competing-interest or conflict-of-interest declarations, ethical standards where human participants are involved, supplementary materials where relevant, and references.

Because the journal is no longer an active ordinary submission destination, authors should not copy historical formatting as though it were a current instruction sheet. Instead, treat those papers as examples of transparent experimental reporting. For a new target journal, rebuild the manuscript against that journal’s current required sections, reference style, word limits, file requirements and declarations.

Open Peer Review and Editorial Transparency

One of Experimental Results’ clearest distinguishing features was open peer review. Cambridge’s own retrospective on the model explains that reviewer names were visible, review reports were published alongside the article, and individual reviews received DOIs. The journal also used a streamlined scorecard designed to focus review on whether an experiment was well designed and conducted and whether the data were valid.

The archive makes this model concrete. Article pages contain an “Open peer review” section, and review records can display the reviewer, date of review, recommendation or decision, conflict-of-interest statement and comments. That transparency gives researchers a rare opportunity to study how reviewers assessed concise experimental papers.

For authors preparing work for another journal, the practical lesson is broader than the specific review model. A manuscript should make methodological adequacy easy to evaluate. Research questions, sample or dataset, experimental conditions, analysis decisions, exclusions, uncertainty, limitations and data availability should be reported clearly enough that an editor and reviewer can understand what was done without reconstructing the study from missing details.

Open Access, Licensing and Publication Fees

Cambridge identifies Experimental Results as open access. Article pages from the archive show Creative Commons licensing, including CC BY on examples reviewed for this guide. That means the published record was intended to be openly accessible and reusable under the terms of the applicable licence.

Historical internet pages contain inconsistent references to APC arrangements at different points in the journal’s life. Because the journal has ceased publication, there is no responsible reason to present an old fee as a current APC. Authors should therefore treat current APC: not applicable for a new submission to this ceased title. When evaluating an active replacement journal, verify the fee directly on the publisher’s current fees-and-pricing page and check institutional read-and-publish agreements or waiver policies where relevant.

Research Ethics and Transparency Lessons from the Journal

Published Experimental Results papers show the kinds of declarations expected in responsible research communication: data availability, author contributions, funding, conflicts or competing interests, and ethical approval statements where human or animal research requires them. Cambridge’s broader publishing-ethics framework also applies principles around authorship, research integrity, competing interests, data and supporting evidence, and corrections or retractions.

The journal archive also contains retraction notices. That is not a reason to dismiss the journal; corrections and retractions are part of the scholarly record when issues require formal action. For researchers evaluating any journal, the more meaningful question is whether editorial actions are transparent and traceable.

As a practical publication-readiness step, authors should prepare their ethical and transparency statements before submission rather than treating them as administrative details at the end. Missing ethics approval information, unclear authorship roles, unreported conflicts or inaccessible data can delay review or raise concerns regardless of the target journal.

Who Would Have Considered Experimental Results—and Who Should Look Elsewhere Now?

Historically, the journal’s concept was relevant to researchers with a valid experimental result that was narrower than a conventional full paper: a replication, a technically sound negative finding, an incremental result, a supplementary experiment or a result that improved the completeness of the scientific record. It also suited authors who valued open peer review and open access.

Today, the correct journal-selection action is different. Researchers should look for an active journal that matches both their discipline and contribution type. A psychology replication study may need a different outlet from an engineering negative result or a computational methodological result, even if all three would once have fit the broad Experimental Results model.

Questions to ask when choosing an active alternative

• Does the journal explicitly accept replications, null results, short reports, registered reports or methodological notes?
• Is the manuscript’s subject central to the journal’s current aims and scope?
• Is the journal active in the indexing database required by your institution?
• Does the article type allow the manuscript’s length, number of figures and methodological detail?
• What research-transparency, data-sharing and ethics declarations are required?
• Are APCs, waivers and institutional agreements clearly stated?
• Does the journal use single-anonymous, double-anonymous or open peer review?
• Do recent papers show methods, study designs and research questions comparable to yours?

How to Prepare a Stronger Experimental Manuscript for an Active Journal

Although Experimental Results itself is no longer the current target, its publication philosophy provides a useful readiness framework. A strong experimental manuscript does not need to oversell a result. It needs to explain the research question, design, measurements, analysis and limitations with enough precision that the evidence can be judged on its merits.

1. State the contribution without inflating it

A negative or null result can be useful when the question is meaningful and the design is capable of testing it. Avoid rewriting an unexpected result as if it had been predicted. Distinguish confirmatory and exploratory analyses where appropriate.

2. Make the methods auditable

Explain participants or datasets, inclusion and exclusion rules, experimental conditions, materials, measures, sample-size rationale, statistical or computational methods, software and any preprocessing steps. If a reader cannot understand how the result was produced, concise writing becomes under-reporting.

3. Treat data and code as part of the scholarly record

Where ethical and legal constraints permit, use an appropriate repository and provide a data-availability statement. If data cannot be shared, explain why and what access conditions apply. The same principle can apply to code, stimuli, protocols and supplementary materials.

4. Align with the target journal before final formatting

Read the active journal’s aims and scope, article-type definitions and several recent papers before adapting the manuscript. Then follow the actual author instructions for title page, abstract, keywords, references, tables, figures, supplementary files, declarations and cover letter.

A Practical Journal-Fit Checklist

Authoritative Links for Further Verification

• Experimental Results on Cambridge Core — official journal archive, publication status, ISSN and scope.
• ISSN Portal record 2516-712X — bibliographic identity, publisher, country, language and database coverage.
• Scopus Source ID 21101104475 — supplied Scopus source profile.
• Cambridge reflection on Experimental Results open peer review — publisher explanation of the peer-review model.
• VU Journal Publishing Guide entry — dated 2024 Scopus metrics and open-access information.

How Contentxprtz Can Support Publication Readiness

When a journal has ceased publication, publication support should begin with journal reselection, not with forcing a manuscript into an outdated target. Contentxprtz can help researchers assess an active journal’s scope, compare article types, review manuscript structure, improve academic language, check reference consistency, format the paper to current instructions and prepare a clear cover letter.

For experimental manuscripts, support may also include clarity-focused editing of methods and results, consistency checks across tables and text, language polishing for ESL authors, reviewer-response editing after peer review, and publication-readiness review. These services should strengthen communication without changing the underlying data, fabricating citations, inventing outcomes or concealing authorship.

Editorial decisions remain with the journal. Contentxprtz does not guarantee acceptance, publication, peer-review outcomes, indexing or citation performance.

Summary

Experimental Results was a Cambridge University Press open-access journal focused on concise, methodologically sound experimental findings, including negative/null results, replications and supplementary findings across eight broad Science, Technology and Medicine subject areas. Its confirmed online ISSN is 2516-712X, and the supplied Scopus source record is 21101104475.

The decisive current fact is that Cambridge Core labels the journal ceased publication. Its papers and open peer-review record remain valuable scholarly resources, and historical 2024 Scopus metrics can help describe its past visibility, but the journal should not be presented as a current routine submission destination. Researchers should use the archive to understand open experimental reporting and then select an active journal whose current scope, indexing, article types, fees and policies match the manuscript and institutional requirements.

For publication readiness, the safest approach is evidence-led: verify the target journal directly, align the manuscript to its current author instructions, report methods and declarations transparently, and seek editing or submission support only in ways that preserve research integrity and author responsibility.