 psychology is one of the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in women's health care. What are the major editorial challenges that you or your team face and how do you maintain high standards of publication? That's a great question. I think one of the challenges is actually keeping up with standards and things that are changing because STM as a field is something that's been evolving pretty rapidly over the last 10 years. So just finding the time to keep up to date and that's a big part of my job. Keep up to date with what's going on and what's new in the field. It can be very challenging because you're also at the same time trying to make sure you're getting out this journal on a monthly basis on time. So it's quite a balancing act sometimes. Other challenges that we face, which I think a lot of people face in their jobs, is just the pace of communication is so different now with email and being able to be in contact with people all the time. I think that can be challenging as well because there is sometimes an expectation that because it's email it's something that you have to respond to right away but sometimes it's just not possible. So for me personally I think the whole email communication thing and just managing that and prioritizing that can be a personal challenge for myself oftentimes. Other challenges we have from the editorial perspective is finding good peer reviewers and peer review is an activity that is not paid and we are very grateful to all of our peer reviewers for what they do for us because they're really ensuring that what we're publishing is has gone through a rigorous test of sorts but again they're not paid. So we monitor peer reviews very carefully. We're careful not to assign things to someone too many times too often for instance we try to give them at least two months between each assignment for instance but also we just want to make sure that we're bringing in new peer reviewers. So that's one thing we've been working on for instance this year is so reaching out to different societies perhaps in different subspecialty areas that maybe not have they may not have a great representation among our reviewer pool and we've been reaching out to them to invite people to sign up to be a peer reviewer and we've gotten a nice response to that. So I think finding good peer reviewers and making sure you have a good balance is a challenge and then once we get those peer reviewers what we've done is categorize them as a new peer reviewer so they're sort of in a separate category and what we do is give them an opportunity to complete four to five reviews and then our editor in chief runs a report and she takes a look at those new reviewers and those people who have high scores and who have turned things around quickly they'll move on toward general reviewer pool. Those people who might be on the fence she might reach out to with a personal communication and give them some tips on what they might change and then there's those that we might just remove from our pool all together. So there is sort of this vetting process that we've put into place our new editor our newish editor our editor-in-chief who started in 2013 she put the student into place and I think it's a great it's worked very well so finding peer reviewers can be one of our biggest challenges.