 I welcome to our FEMS microbes journal. We have our editorial board listed here and you've already met us three editors-in-chief. So let's go ahead and move on to the next slide. So we do everything we can to make this the best possible journal. FEMS microbes was kind of the idea behind it was to create a broad-spectrum microbiology journal in FEMS that accepted full-length papers. The other broad-spectrum microbiology journal, FEMS microbes letters specializes in shorter format publications we wanted to have full-length ones. So with this new journal we had a couple of things that we're doing that are different and good. All these are listed here. One big one here is the transparent peer review process we make it possible for. And it's a mutual consent situation for the reviewers and the authors to make all of that information available once the paper is published. Okay, so sailing into the attendees here, we really want to include and embrace early career scientists with this journal. So part of the motivation for this workshop is centered around this first idea involving early career scientists in the peer review process. We also are really happy to bring people in as guest editors for thematic issue. We've had several of these in process. So this is a situation that is ongoing. If you've got an idea for a thematic issue, please speak up and talk to us because we're very interested in these. We have FEMS webinars. I think this might count as one, but we also potentially have FEMS articles that are presented as their own thing that we welcome. And then we also have a social media presence as well. Okay, well then let's go ahead and move on to our discussion of the peer review process. This is where I take over. So we'll just take you through sort of the general approach that we feel is appropriate for reviewing for our journal. So that you might consider when we contact you. So can we go to the next slide? So the first thing that happens is you will get an email asking if you would like to review a paper. And usually in that email, there'll be an abstract and sometimes the authors are listed. I can't remember if it is for our journal, but the editors have selected you based on either your publication record or your expertise, areas of expertise that you've provided for us that we have in a database for all of our early career researchers that we're interested in reviewing. So we can try to match people as best possible, but that's not always going to work. Sometimes we get close matches, we do our best, but so this is why I say it's rarely a perfect match. And so this is a point for you to consider just because you've been invited to review a paper doesn't mean you're necessarily going to feel comfortable doing that. So things to think about are, is that a similar organism, similar model system, using similar approaches or techniques that you're familiar with. If this is way off in left field, don't do it at them, then the editor misjudged and you can absolutely say no. At that point. And by the way, Katie and Yana and Patrick, please feel free to just jump in at any point. I'll try to pause appropriately for you to do so. And so, okay, were you jumping in? No, just saying yes, I will. Okay, okay. And so if it's not a good fit, but you have a colleague down the hall who's an early career researcher or a faculty member or whatever, that would be perfect, please let us know that our editors really, really appreciate that for those of you that are ever on social media, you know, the editors are often complaining about the difficulty of finding reviewers. And so sometimes you're not quite perfect to review, but you're close enough to identify more appropriate reviewers. So that's very much appreciated. Another thing that's important to ask yourself is do you have sufficient time to do this? Because at least, you know, when you're not used to doing these frequently, they can take a fair amount of time. At an order of hours, I know some people that will take a day to really appropriately and fully review a paper. So it can take some time. And then the last thing to consider before you click on that accept button is whether or not you have any conflicts of interest. So do you know the authors? Have you published with the authors? The editors tried to check that before they identify reviewers, but we can miss them for sure. You have a relationship with any of the authors that could bias your judgment. Would you like them to review your paper? Do you have any sort of underlying bias that might color the review to the negative? And does it contradict your work? Is there a bias in terms of work, not necessarily a relationship, but are these competitors? Would you, might you be biased in that review? So think about that as well. And so, okay, next slide. Can I add something to that? I just think that it would be really good if you decide not to or you have a reason that you actually identify the reason because it's good for us to get that information as well. If it's, if we've missed the target subject. So that's actually really helpful and informative to the editor as well. Thanks, Yana. Okay, next slide then. So if you have then gone ahead and accepted the invitation because you think that you are appropriate to do this and ready to go. Some things that are important to do, especially when a journal is new to you. So you will not have reviewed for FEMS microbes before. So you'll want to get a sense of what is the scope of the journal. That's always on the journal's website. So you can find that look at the review criteria. This is sometimes listed in the website itself. Sometimes this is through a link. Well, usually you'll see it in a link once you accept the invitation. And so our criteria are shown here on the right. So these are the sorts of things that you'll be asked to evaluate. And you can just look through that as I talk. But this is always a good place to start. What are you looking for? And a lot of these, the criteria are here. I think one of the bullet points here that we was added was that to ask yourself, you know, is there gonna be significant significance or innovation sufficient for warranting publication? And so this often goes, speaks to scope. So what is the journal looking for in terms of advancing science? Different journals have different bars where we have to meet. And then so the author instruction for FEMS microbes are listed here where you can get then more information about the journal. So that's kind of the first step is just getting a handle on what the journal is looking for.