 Welcome to today's webinar, Things to Consider When Publishing Your First Paper. Today, E-Life Deputy Editor, Detlef Weigel, Executive Director of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology will be introducing you to the E-Life submission process. This will then be followed by a Q&A session where you will be able to ask Detlef all of your questions. Over to you, Detlef. All right. Thank you, Anya. Yeah, my pleasure to be here. I've been with E-Life since the beginning. That's almost 10 years when we founded E-Life. And our ambition was really to change how publishing and reviewing is done. And the goal of today's webinar is to cover the E-Life process. And what I hope you will take away is, while both, that you learn how we do things at E-Life and that you will hopefully consider E-Life for submission for one of your next papers. But also that you learn what we consider a really good practices in terms of reviewing and practices, which we hope will become more and more common. In fact, since we started E-Life almost 10 years ago, some of these practices have already been adopted by others. So I'll share my screen and we just get into the middle of this. So things to consider when publishing your first paper with E-Life. What we'll cover today is very brief introduction of E-Life and then, as I mentioned, more extensively our approach to peer review. So about E-Life, our goal is to help scientists accelerate discovery by streamlining, publishing, and the dissemination of new knowledge. And specifically, we see E-Life as a platform for research communication that encourages and recognizes the most responsible behaviors and signs. And you see here already that this is about a lot more than just publishing paper that there's E-Life the journal, but there's also E-Life at the organization with the goal to change how science is being disseminated and how discoveries are being disseminated and how we as scientists communicate with each other. So what is our approach to peer review? What's important to us is that initial decisions are delivered quickly, so initial decision whether or not we will send something for in-depth review. Important, it's active scientists, most of them in academia, but some of them actually also in industry who make the decisions, active scientists, meaning people who run their own labs. In consultation with other experts in the field, this is something that we pride ourselves in. We have quite a large board of reviewing editors, almost 500. And among this board, essentially no matter what is being submitted from the life sciences, we will find at least one, if not more experts who really know the field. If we decide something is fit for in-depth review, we request that you upload more information. We then review the work, and importantly, rather than sending you a pile of reviews which can be often quite disparate, we before discuss what revisions should look like so that you have very clear guidance for revision requests. Our goal is also to limit the rounds of revisions, ideally only one round of revision and ideally also one round of formal reviews. And then both our decision letters and your responses to our criticism concerns are available for all to read. So how does this practically work? So like any other journal, you upload your manuscript to E-Life or if you have uploaded it to BioArchive before, it is transmitted from BioArchive to E-Life. That's the initial submission. And what this is here to symbolize is that we discuss it. I, as deputy editor, will assign initial submission and there are three deputy editors will assign an initial submission to one of the senior editors. And we have about 50 of those and all different disciplines of the life sciences. And then the senior editor will normally discuss it with members of the board of reviewing editors. I already mentioned this larger board of about 500 people, and then they will discuss whether or not this is something that we should consider in full. If we decide not to consider in full, we decline it and this takes normally average three days, sometimes faster, sometimes a little bit slower. So then we invite you to full submission. That is, we ask you to provide a bit more information, meta information, and then it goes out to peer review. And what this is here to symbolize, when the reviews come in, we have a consultation. And the consultation you can imagine is sort of like a blog where the participants leave their comments in. Importantly, they know each other. That's really a very important part of this. You know whom you are talking to and my own observation is that makes these exchanges and the discourse a lot more civil than if you have exchanges that are purely anonymous. So there's a discussion, what is the merit of the work, what are concerns, often turns out that say one person learns that really they have been too critical, another person might learn that they have overlooked something so it really helps if people talk to each other. And then we'll really try to figure out what is the minimum that is required to make this fit for Eli. So of course, you know, there could be lots of bells and whistles. I suspect quite a few of you have already experienced this you submit something for review at a journal and it comes back. And you have the feeling, well, these people these reviewers didn't really review your paper, but they thought about what would a paper look like that they would write and then they tell you how to write your paper and so really that's what we want to very strongly avoid. We want to look at the paper and they say, and then clearly say this is the minimum that you have to do so that we consider it for publication. So we find that, you know, overall the advance is not sufficient for Eli or that it might just take too long to, you know, satisfy what we would like to see. We decline it with the option to transfer the reviews to another journal so we have part of a group of journals that exchanges reviews. And then you have the right revision, hopefully we'll get back your revision within a couple of months or so, and then it is published in Eli. So initial submission, what does it look like this is something that I think Eli was one of the first journals now more and more journals are doing this I'm really happy about this because it shows that we have impact. You just upload text and figures as a single PDF so there is doesn't matter. In what style or format you wrote your paper initially so many of us, when we first start to write manuscripts we don't really quite know where we eventually want to send it. So doesn't matter to us whether this exactly conforms to our style, you just send it to us. We read it, as I mentioned senior editor and typically two to three editors and following discussion. We decide whether to invite full submission and me and time oh I just see here I was exaggerating so I think the mean is three days but the median is five days which is a bit higher. So there is this screen where you put in the reviewer name reviewer email. And of course, as is common with many other journals. You can also exclude reviewers and the suggestion of course you can also suggest senior editors you can suggest members of the board of reviewing editors and so on and you can exclude senior editors you can exclude members of the board of reviewing editors if there are good reasons to do so. So, as I already alluded to, when we then in the end discuss the reviews, all the reviewers are known to each other by name. Via knows the common is open or the comments are open to discussion. What I found is that colleagues really think quite carefully what they write and overall this becomes much more constructive than what you know I often have the impression you send manuscripts for submission at a regular journal where the reviewers don't talk to each other and also their identity is not known to each other. So, this is, you know, sort of what online consultation might look like so it starts when all the reviews are in there's a form email that comes from the reviewing editor and the reviewing editor. Email says, look, we got all the reviews, please go to the elive website you can see the other reviews and then, you know, let's start a discussion, what we should do with this paper so reviewer one might say I agree this is important provides inside reviewer two might say, I don't think they need to perform any new web lab experiments. I'm willing to wave the functional testing of whatever but the findings therefore need to be more conservatively discussed reviewer three might say I fully agree with the previous comments. I think it makes a number of important points. And then this is all condensed. The reviewing editor writes up a summary so and that's in the decision letter so headline already you see who the reviewing editor was. So here's comes this boilerplate thank you for submitting your article was overseen by a reviewing editor and who was the senior editor and then the reviewing editor you see here again name name is up here, and then reviewers can disclose their identity after but they can disclose their identity in the specific case, you know, to use disclose the identity and dates, just what I said reviews discussed reviews was one another and the reviewing editor has started the decision and then here's a summary and this elegant studies report, and so on. And this is what we expect them to do. Alright, so we are already at the end of my brief presentation here. So you can ask questions you can post your questions in the zoom chat to everyone. And then I'm here who introduced me she'll invite you to ask your questions. If you want to if you don't want to ask the question yourself. She can also read the question out for all of us. If you're not speaking please move yourself and if you need help just send a chat message on zoom to and yet I assume like the rest of us you all have become super, super efficient in zoom now so thank you. Thank you very much for listening to my brief presentation. Please follow us on social media, Twitter, elive elive innovation elive community and if you're interested in plans and an evolution. You may also want to consider following my Twitter account and down here are the organizations, which have put serious amounts of money and helping to start and continue elive how use Medical Institute in the United States to welcome in Great Britain, the Max Planck Society in Germany and the Knud and Alice Waldenberg Foundation in Sweden. And that's all I had to say and I will answer my screen. Alright, and it looks like we already have quite a few questions here. Anja, you want to call up people. Hi, did you want to read these ones out as they're having problems. Okay. Okay, so the first question was will a recording be made available and it's being recorded and I think the answer is yes. Okay, so the answer that that that was from David McCrary and Emra Altindus is asking who is from Boston color college. What is the main difference between initial submission and full submission in terms of submitted documents and what's the average time for the process for Eli. So, the main difference between initial submission and full submission is initial submission is just wherever absolute that gives the contact information you don't have to upload, you know, all the individual authors names and the orchid IDs and all that comes only in the full submission also in the initial submission you don't necessarily have to upload individual figures and supplemental material and so on and so forth. So, the average time for the review process. Our goal is two to three weeks, and it has been fairly constant over the last few years, and it's actually remarkable because you can, you know, imagine what's this discussion that does add, you know, several several days to a to a decision and also the reviewing editor having to write up the decision so it's different from an editor just, you know, forwarding the reviews and when we started out with Eli, I, you know, when I talked about Eli when it was introducing the process I was always joking what's the difference between Eli and a conventional journal is that while Eli you get one letter and that letter has a coherent story in terms of, you know, what we want from you and in terms of revisions and whatnot we as a conventional journal reviews that we get what would be like this, the editor would forward the reviews and the first reviewer would say, another brilliant paper by the Vigil lab published immediately, and the second reviewer would say, Ah, awful work from the Vigil lab, as always, it is a complete disaster. The other person would say, didn't read it, don't care whatever you do and the editor would provide a cover letter that would say, Dear Dr Vigil, your esteemed colleagues have reviewed your work, please address the comments and you would sit there and scratch your head and have no idea what really to do so that's, you know, very very different at Eli, sorry that I went up on a little rant here. Frida was asking, can you repeat the timeline of each step so again the initial submission, I think mean time is three median is five days. So it comes back and we say we want to have the full submission where we want a little bit more information. Then we already have this reviewing editor who oversees the review, and then the reviewing editor will select additional reviewers, and then it depends a little bit on how quickly you get reviewers to sign on so that's often really the limiting gap get reviewers to take on reviews it can sometimes be really really frustrating so. And yeah I don't remember what's the average number of reviewers we have to ask but it's probably on the order of twice as many as what the number of reviews is that we want to have two to three reviews we want to have. And I think if you only have to ask five or six people that's that's pretty good, and not everybody responds right away so that's something where all of us really can make a difference when you get. When you get an invitation to review, you're not interested in reviewing it. Please write immediately it's really remarkable how many people do not just do not respond you have no idea whether they will review it or not and then we I think it's every two days or so we sent an automated email and then after six or seven days we just make a decision, you know that it doesn't make any sense bothering these people and further but it's really remarkable how many people never respond which which in a way is really quite quite sad. Right so I'm really asked more questions. Okay, I go down here. Then Frida says doesn't review is consulting each other influences their opinions shouldn't it be independent. Well, Frida, we want the reviewers to influence each each other opinion so I think I get what what what you're saying or what you worry about. I think, and worry that admittedly many of us had before we started this, that if there's a power differential between the reviewers, you know that basically people are throwing their weight around that more senior editors prevailed. But it's really remarkable or seeing more senior reviewers, but it's really remarkable that, you know, we've reviewed thousands and thousands of papers now. And we've of course, you know, ask our review as our viewing editors. And yes, this complaint has come up maybe once or twice but it's really really rare that, especially junior people feel railroaded and while I'm already you know on this this this this point of junior colleagues, we really try hard, and I admit not as good as we could but we try hard to involve early career researchers now in our reviews and consultation. So why is it good if reviewers influence each other? Well, because I have to say, you know, I have reviewed many, many papers in my lifetime, and I have made plenty of mistakes reviewing papers. And we are all just just humans. You read a paper, you overlook things that you then learn from others that you should have overlooked or it can go the other way that you are just too critical. It turns out that you think, Well, why has this not been done? It's just because you don't know the literature as much and it turns out this is actually well established and is something that you don't have to worry about. All right. Let's go on here. How similar or different this is from Pavitran Narayanan is asking how similar or different are considerations when dealing with review articles with respect to research articles. Well review articles we have done relatively sparingly and only based on based on invitations. But they are also being reviewed just like regular research articles. But I think unsolicited requests for reviews we turn down quite often because we have pretty specific ideas what reviews should look like. So we want reviews not be so much just reviews of the literature, but really about, you know, new ideas provocative ideas, perhaps opening up new research avenues. Santilat Supaj is asking what do you think about double blinded review instead of regular single blinded review. Will it give advantage for smaller research group. It's certainly something that we have discussed quite a bit. So I think there are advantages to double blinded review. But our overall consensus in the end was that it's an enormous effort to go to double blinded review. And many papers are not written in a way where you just strip away the author name that it will be unclear who actually wrote the work. So in many instances, perhaps even most instances, you will have a pretty good idea who wrote the paper. So I do see the advantages, but it is substantial, it is substantial effort and for it to really work, you would have to ask the authors to write it in a way that the authors are not recognizable anymore. So, and Santilat, if you want to ask more there or discuss this, very happy to do so. You asked for the preprint review process what should be included in the initial submission step so really happy. Thank you for giving me this pointer you done that we have now this preprint review process it's a new experiment that we are doing. We have this triage process that's the process that I outlined, but with preprint review, we commit to reviewing the work that almost always so so of course if we find there's something flawed in the work, we will not review it, or if it is outside of our remit, or if we just cannot find people who can take this on as reviewers this question sometimes always also happens. So there it's the initial submission is really the is like the full submission. All right. Laura is asking what sort of information and editor looks for an initial review to the side of paper to be sent for detail review or not. That is, that's a very appropriate question but also one of the most difficult questions to answer. So it's, it's, it's really what is the advance in the field. There's a nice article that one of our former deputy editors wrote if matter what makes an elive paper and I would encourage you to look at this what makes an elive paper. So, sometimes it's you know this is something really radical provocative not fully developed and other days is just, you know, okay, this is where we're now this really gets us to the next step. And also they were a lot of these different things around, and this paper is just a really beautiful paper that collects, you know, a lot of different strands puts them together and really sort of closes an area of inquiry so it's it's difficult to put your exact finger on it but it's really the overall advance for for the field I would say. Where, let me see what we are like your husband is asking, what are the major reasons for editorial rejections what suggestions do you have for the authors to increase the chance of getting the manuscript review so again so the major reason for editorial rejection is just that we often, you know what we will say is, this is this looks like good good work solid work, but it's not the sort of sort of conceptual advance so ideally, you know, the paper, it will report the discovery of a new biological principle. And then the next question is asking another question how does he like deal with detection of data manipulation what are the policies for paper retraction, and how has been your experience in this area so we do publish a good number of papers so we had a few cases where paper had to be printed so there is no simple answer to this so you know typically sometimes it's the authors themselves to say well sorry we found out we can't reproduce the data for whatever reason it is, and sometimes it's pointed out by an outside source, we give the authors. We first look at that you know if somebody alerts us to potential problems and, you know, as an aside, I recently only learned about Hansen's razor, I knew about Occam's razor I didn't know about Hansen's razor about before. So, when they are problems, you know, so problems can happen just because things get overlooked or people didn't fully consider something so. Yes, there is fraud in science, but I think that the bigger problem is just that you know people just did not fully understand things and it's it's really insufficient understanding that leads to problems rather than wanting to fake data so that's the most important thing to detect if somebody starts out with intent to make up stuff, you know, then that's often difficult to see because we assume we get something for review that authors are honest. So, again, going away from the aside so coming back to this. Yes, when we alerted to this we look at this make up our mind how serious it is, we consult the authors and then based on what the authors tell us we look at it again and we either tell them yeah, there's something that you can amend or we tell them no paper has to be retracted. And Santilla is asking again about double lined, because if a particular group is jump point into a new field of research. Yeah, I agree with you that you know unfortunately they are close minded people who feel that you know, newbies don't have who were not properly qualified don't have a reason to be in a particular field. I can tell you, I have changed research field many, many times. I started out in your biology was an animal development I studied transcription factors I studied plant development. I got into plant evolution and genomics and now I'm working at the interface of ecology and evolution so I completely understand where you come from because I had no formal training in evolutionary biology I have certainly had no formal training in ecology and yes I know firsthand that often that can be can be difficult so then Anya has something here let me just briefly read this. In terms of early stage investigator status so we are marking that it comes from early career researcher so in the beginning at elive. We had this and I think you can still mark yourself as an early career researcher so the idea is to take that into account in practice what we have found is it's really quite difficult to decide how to take this into account if something comes from an early career researcher to give them the extra benefit of the doubt so that's our ambition, but it's just really difficult to do it. Formerly, when people review work, they review the work and they find it really hard to take, you know, other things into account then what's just in front of them that's unfortunately how it how it works. Frieda is asking is the submission fee so I assume Frieda means the article processing charge isn't in line with other journal there's a lot of discussion about journal fees and a lot of people believe that since someone reviews papers for free then the publishing should also be free. Well, in the end it has to be paid for. And so one thing that's what we do what is very different from I think pretty much any other journal we actually publish a financial report every year so you can actually look at what our costs are and how much the article processing charges paid for so we have quite a substantial staff. I also get paid as a deputy editor senior editors get paid reviewing editors depends on what their workload is they get a small stipend is so was 40 some full time spare staff and then you know that includes a lot of the development of the software and whatnot so they are serious cost associated with was publishing so that has to come from from somewhere and so, of course, publishing can be free in the sense if you submit to a commercial journal but then the access is not free and as you all know elive is open access so you don't have to pay for reading elive articles. The elive processing charges are very high so what's the procedure criteria to wave off the charges so our I would say our charges are sort of middle of the road is certainly when you look at, for example, the nature or cell clones they have substantially higher charges than we have. We are not in the whatever 100 or $200 range as for example PJ is I actually so the waving can help me out the decision there is is made by whom whether or not charges are being waived. That's, I assume is that decision is made in Cambridge is typically Andy making the our managing editor making those decisions do you know and yeah. Yeah, I would imagine say. Yeah. So again so what exactly happens was the article processing charges so again, you can look this up let me see whether this works if I say elive elive financial report where that works. Yeah. So, if you just put an annual elive annual report. I just want to make sure that this is really the that is the one that elive by numbers. Yes, if you just put in elive annual report, then it will take you to our annual reports and it will tell you what what things are being paid for so for example looking at the 2018 report 63% of expenditure goes to publishing 37% goes towards technology and innovation I mentioned that he like wants to be more than just the journal. Payments to editors of the publishing cost make up about a third staff about 8% online systems 9% article processing 21% our features so this is kind of the cover pie makes up 12% and then marketing makes up 14% and then breaks it down in thousands of pounds so please go and look at this. Dimitri is asking. Thank you Dimitri for your thanks layer for the concise intro and answers. And do you have any upcoming plans to introduce soon any new text such as the first computation reproducible paper was well so for example we were part of the initiative that you know data are directly connected to to figures which I think is an important advance. We also had technically this is less on the data to paper side, but more in terms of how you read it we you know came up with a number of innovations how you actually read papers online. Yeah, I see that that's what you just refer to interactivity and papers. So, yeah, so that I have to kick this over to Maria or Anya. Yeah, I can't answer this right now in terms of how easily we could put this into into make this a reality but Dimitri if you send me an email afterwards we can discuss it so. So that left Maria here hi so I'm part of the life staff everyone nice to meet you all. So I know that the innovation team is currently testing the reproducible documents with some authors at submission. So we are looking to start publishing a few papers I would say within the next few weeks. But again, if this is something you're interested in learning more about feel free to get in touch with with me or that left directly and we can put you in touch with the relevant person. Thank you, Maria. Thank you. I'm probably trying to ask another question here so how concerned are we are about maintaining boosting our impact factor number so. If you we've published quite extensively or comment that quite extensively on this so we truly do not look at impact factors so I don't know exactly where our impact factor is so sometimes people do complain to me that it is not where they think it would be. We don't really look at this because we don't publish reviews I'm sure our impact factor is lower than that of some of our competitors so we think work really has to speak for itself and we from the very beginning be strong. We are a supporter of ultra metric so other measures of how impactful individual individual papers are so again so we are not concerned about it at all and when you look at you know the number of submissions. We Maria do you remember how many papers we publish now so our submissions close to 10,000 a year now we publish something like 16% or so so it's interesting that nobody has asked this but I'll bring it up anyway. So in the initial triage process, about two thirds of papers are returned to the authors and about one third we decide to send for full submission. And then once you go to full submission the chances of getting accepted is about 5050 so that's really not bad at all so in the end it's about 16% or so for the submissions that we publish but so with close to 10,000 papers a year you see that this is as well over 1000 papers which we now publish per year and when you look at how we have developed that we really you know from the very beginning was very nice growth of of alive. And so we have continued to grow and we've had years where it was flat and then it went up again so recently went up again so the fact that we ignore impact factor it does not seem to have hurt us. There's other journals like don't want to name any names but which other journals that I've been associated with a community journals not commercial journals that they have felt strongly that they are certain, you know, key numbers that they had to reach and that that was more is more important than anything else but there's very much driven by that quite a few community journals are worrying about the number of submissions they get and that's really the least of our worries of what I'm saying. Yeah so Maria says about 120 publications per month and there's also in the chat box is a link to metrics. So Frida is asking, I don't see any big advantage to publish in in in elive so yeah the big advantage is really how you're being treated by the reviewers and editors so again, we are certainly not perfect. I think on average, average we treat our authors a lot better than the way they're being treated at other journals again that you get, you know, so feedback that is substantial and much clearer guidance is a big advantage. And that our ambition is and it has been a little bit different in covered 19 time now but our ambition and normal times has been to only suggest revisions where we think that they can be done within two months so that you really have a good idea and and really to only invite revisions when we are essentially certain that they can be done in. I don't know the numbers right off the top of my head, but the vast majority of papers where we invite revisions we then also publish and again that's different from you know some other high level journals where you get invited to revision and you still don't really have a good feel for whether or not they will eventually publish your work. So he had says whenever we submit so Santila again whenever we submit pre submission inquiry was a failure but chance for review or more when you do full submission is okay to do full submission even after rejection from pre submission inquiry. So I assume the question here is full submission is the was the pre print review if I understand that correctly so if it was submitted in the normal way so we don't really have the pre submission we only have this initial submission. So at Elive, if you submit it with a normal track the initial submission is what was a decline, then you cannot submit again through the pre print review where we commit to reviewing. And then another question he has what are the main mistakes that you see and then in new investigative investigator papers that that one should avoid. Well, I think it was with any paper, the, the, the, the, that there is this this trade off so you want to of course emphasize what is new what is great what is cool about your work, but you still want to be reasonable so you don't want to, you know, common mistake and doesn't matter whether you're young or junior or senior or older whatever is to claim things that go beyond what is actually in the paper itself. Just today somebody asked me for feedback on on on their submission was not alive or something else just a colleague said you know can you tell me what you know what would you do with this paper and I noticed that in the paper itself in the manuscript, they were talking about the association between something and something else. And then the title set was actually not association that a and B were associated with each other. The title set a causes be okay so but that's not what the paper is said and it's clear clearly they had put this claim and the title because they thought then it's more likely that an editor will look at and that's probably true more likely that an editor will look at it, but also, I think reduces then your chance that the reviewers take it take it seriously if you exaggerate your claims but again, elive we really want to work with authors and one of the things that we have done and in the time that we really try hard to minimize what we asked for in terms of revisions that we really double down on our efforts to look at the paper at hand and not this I referred to this earlier this imaginary paper you know what is the paper that I would write if I would work on this but really the paper at hand minimize the reviews and then in COVID-19 we've actually gone so far that we've said look let's think hard whether additional experiments are really really necessary and if in the end we decide they are not absolutely necessary or would be just nice to have you told authors okay look tune down your claims will publish your work, there are a few more experiments that would be nice to do and we expect you to do them after the COVID-19 time is over and then you can send it to us as a research advance or just put it on bio archive whatever you think is fits best and you just put two other two more links here in the chat our author guide and our policy about preprints and school protection that's perhaps also important thank you and yeah for reminding me and that goes back to Frida's question what's a big advantage of publishing in elive so the school protection is something else that we have a couple of other journals now have deserve as well so if you submit something to us and while we are reviewing your paper another paper comes out on you know that is very very similar if your paper is already under review is as we will not hold that against you that another paper is out there but we will look at your paper and consider what we have published would be you know have published your paper even if we didn't know about this other paper that is out there. And then also a link from Anja towards what we're doing to support research culture in in general. And Pavitran is asking do social media comments influence reviewers and editors. That's that's perhaps you've Pavitran maybe you have followed some of the Twitter exchanges I don't think I contributed directly to this maybe I have retweeted one of these so there was there was an observation that supposedly papers who had gotten social media and a lot of social media attention preprints that have gotten a lot of social media attention. Also were more accrued more citations afterwards so I'm not sure a cause and effect was proper they are so if something is likely to you know get attention then of course I think it's likely to get attention on social media but also get attention. Later on so I would hope that a live whether or not something has gotten attention in this and social media will not you know play any role whether or not we should submit it we should consider it for full review. All right, are there any more questions coming so and I think have I overlooked any question there. There's one more. There are articles which cover all aspects from, you know, single cell to whole organismal kind of essentially kind of paper have data from too many diverse fields what you do to select reviewers for this kind of papers. Yeah, so I mean that's one of the advantages with our process so especially when it's these transdisciplinary papers so experience I think as reviewers look at this they know one area and this is basically what they comment on they will say I'm not really qualified to come in on the other part. And then it's really, really helpful to have this discussion among the reviewers because they can educate and inform you of them, each other, and I would hope that with three reviewers you could cover most things. All right. Good. All right, this is your last chance to ask any more question but of course you can also just afterwards email me or on yeah. So. All right, good. Cool. All right, Emory asked asking should we just apply I didn't quite understand this, what should we do to become I missed that to become a reviewer for Eli. We have we we had for certain areas we had a self nomination process I it's not clear yet whether we're going to do this again but of course it doesn't hurt if you write to us and nominate yourself as a as a as a reviewer so we certainly have had reviewers that we got through people just writing to us. Yeah. Yeah, and people can apply to becoming early career reviewer Maria just put this in there. All right, great. Thank you very much. Anything Maria or Anya you want to add. That's everything just thank you very much. All right, great. Thank you very much then.