 Hi, I'm Claire Dondieu and I work for OpenEdition, a French organization dedicated to providing electronic resources and academic information in the humanities and social sciences. And today, thanks to Hypothesis, I will present to you our first publication open peer review experiments, currently ongoing on OpenEdition Books, a multi-publisher books platform. This experiment takes part in the European-funded Hermrose project, which prototypes and supports a common layer of added value services on top of five open access platforms for the dissemination of research monographs. Annotation is one of those services. In this context, OpenEdition is leading an experiment for scholarly communication. The objective of our experiment with Hypothesis is to create a space for scientific conversations around publications. We want to enable readers to share their opinions and their knowledge, linked to the book subjects directly at the time of reading. We have moderation rights on these annotations, so we expect participants to write scientific, constructive and well-agreed annotations in order to offer a critique of the ideas that make up the texts, provide fact-checking in the books, open new avenues for reflection and elements enriching the publications and interact with each other by using reply features. We also want to offer an innovative service which could be useful to explore the value of opening new peer review processes, enabling readers to develop new usages. The project focuses on 14 books, opens for annotation from February to June. At the beginning of the experiment, readers were invited to read and annotate the 13 selected books. Here are some observations from the experiment so far. Here as you can see, annotators are writing well-agreed and developed annotations and are not satisfied with just a few words. Some authors are rather responsive and engage in direct exchanges with their readers using the reply functionality. Sometimes authors are also initiators of debates by questioning their own publications or using annotations as an opportunity to update the content of their publications and to cross-reference them with more recent research. Some annotators have even pushed a little bit in the use of hypothesis features by using tags, for instance, in order to manage their annotations. And finally, we have here an example of annotations made by a reader with editorial purposes, suggesting some corrections. These are just a few examples that already show us different ways in which an open and direct communication tool like hypothesis can be used by scientific communities. Annotations made by readers and authors will be studied and described in the overall results of the experiments, which will be published in a report in June. So thanks for your attention and keep in touch.