 Hello, everybody, and welcome to the EGU webinar Meet the EGU editors. Today, we have three speakers from three different EGU journals to talk to you about the publication process from submission to acceptance and cover topics such as how to get into editing, if you're interested in this role, the importance of peer review and also some of the different topics that the EGU journals cover. So we have three speakers today and we will introduce them in just a second. If you have a question or you would like to start a discussion of any kind, please feel free to use the chat and the Q&A box. The Q&A box will be monitored more closely for questions, so if you really want to put a question to the speakers, please put your question there. But otherwise the chat will also be moderated. So firstly I would like to introduce Julianne Danberg, who is an editor for the Solid Earth Journal of EGU. All right, hello everyone. So first I wanted to give an overview about myself. So I'm an assistant professor at the University of Florida, so I've been there since 2019. And I did my PhD in Germany at GFZ Potsdam, and then I did different postdocs in the US at Texas A&M in Colorado State. And for a while I was also a project scientist at UC Davis. And so my expertise is that I am a geodynamicist. And so my research focuses on different processes that affect mental conduction, and in particular mental plumes and mental heterogeneity. So for example, I'm interested in phase transitions, melting in the mental magma dynamics and the evolution of the mineral grain size. And I'm also one of the principal developers of an open source geodynamic modeling software that's called Aspect. So I'm sort of both in geodynamics and also a bit into applied math. And in terms of like being an editor, I'm an editor for like a topical editor for Solid Earth, and I've like, like I started doing that a bit more than a year ago. So it's basically I just started out with that and there are many things that I'm also still learning about like what it means to be an editor and what I have to do. And for Solid Earth, the idea is that with the editors, it has a few executive editors. But then it has many topical editors and they are each like a specialist on a given topic. So that means after you submit your paper to Solid Earth, then the executive editor would decide like which topical editor would be the right person to handle this paper. And that's based on a number of keywords that you would submit with the paper. And so since my expertise is geodynamics, I usually handle geodynamics papers. And yeah, you can also have a look at the Solid Earth website where all of the topical editors are listed. So next I wanted to say a bit about the journal Solid Earth. So in general, as it says, it's about Solid Earth. So like it covers multidisciplinary research on the composition structure and dynamics of the earth from the surface to the deep interior, and at all spatial and temporal scales. And it has four specific subject areas that are core and mantle structure and dynamics, crustal structure and composition, tectonic plate interactions, magma genesis and lithosphere deformation at all scales, and the evolving earth surface. And so what that means is pretty much if you work, if your research is on anything that has to do with the Solid Earth, you can submit the paper to Solid Earth. And even if you work on the outer core, even if it's not solid, that still is also fine. And like the study can be on observations or experiments or also a theoretical study. And like especially methods papers are also welcome to. So there's a separate category for methods papers. And one question was also like, is it more shorter papers or longer papers and like there are different categories. They are also like shorter commentaries. You can also make your paper as long as you want, but they are page charges. So if you make your paper really, really long, then you have to pay more for it. The disciplines, it covers a lot of different disciplines. So it's basically from geochemistry, geodynamics to geodesy gravity, geoelectrics, geomagnetism, seismology, rock physics, so basically all different disciplines you can think of that have to do with the Solid Earth. And one thing that I wanted to go a bit more into is the review process because that's a bit different from many of the other journals. The idea is that the review process is open and interactive. I can maybe also so there's like a specific, there's a link on the Solid Earth website where basically that just covers like how does the research process work, the review process work. I will just like paste that into the chat, but he even has a picture. And the idea is basically that so once you submit your paper. The editor that picks a topical editor and then the topical editor can say oh does it fit within the scope of the journal and does it look like it's like it has good scientific quality so that it can be sent out to peer review. And so once I as a topical editor would say yes that's fine. Then it will be posted like openly in Solid Earth discussions so like everyone could then see oh this paper that you submitted. That's like under review in Solid Earth and it's the preprint that's basically already online. And then there starts this open discussion for six weeks where basically you will get comments so I will like I will ask reviewers to review the paper and they will post their referee comments. But then also everyone in the community can post comments and like ask questions and like make comments on what they think about the paper. And the idea is really that this is like an open discussion where it's like a back and forth between the authors and the community. And so as an editor I would also comment in this phase so if I think one comment was specifically important, I would say that. And then after this open discussion the so you as an author would have four weeks to write a final response to all of the comments that are there. And then four to eight weeks after the end of this discussion you would have to submit the revised version of the manuscript and then afterwards it pretty much works like with every other journal. So, basically would like so unless so like at that stage as an editor I could already say like if if I think in the final response that's like not good enough the paper could already be rejected. But otherwise you would like then submit a revised version of the manuscript, and then either it would go to another round of peer review or it would just be accepted, or basically a decision would be made on the paper. And so what that also means is throughout the whole review process your paper is already public but then at the end also all of the reviewer comments and your reply is they are all public. So basically at the end, everyone could go back and see like what did the reviewers think about this and like how did you address their comments. Dan. Yeah, so that was that was what I wanted to say about solid earth. And then there were a few like one one other point we wanted to discuss was like tips that editors can give you about like your like what like best practices what can you do when you submit your paper. And one question was like is the is a cover letter necessary so I just think it's always useful to have a cover letter but it's not like this is like nature or science where we reject lots of papers before even sending them out to peer review. But I think it's useful for the executive editor to decide like what's the, what is this like, what's the topic, which topic editor should they assign. I also wanted to mention so whenever you submit a paper to solid earth. There's an automatic similarity check where basically it checks against like all of the texts online. If any phrases are similar to anything that has been published before so it checks even against your own previously published papers. And so that means it's good practice that even if you have methods that are really similar to a previous paper to rephrase that, because otherwise this virtual up to me as an editor as like an alert oh this is like the, the plagiarism check, something is wrong. Yeah, so then the, the last two questions were like how to respond to criticism, and then I would say it's just most important to take it seriously. So the, basically the only, like the, I would only reject the paper if I see older, like, there was a reviewer who had a comment and then the authors didn't take that seriously. I agree or disagree with what the reviewer said, but as long as I see the authors have seriously considered what the reviewers have said then that's totally fine. And so since I mostly handle papers that are within my expertise, I know most of the reviewers and so I know I trust them that they have the expertise to judge this paper and so when I see someone doesn't take that seriously, then I think that that's that's not good practice. And like so far I only had to reject one paper so I don't have that much experience with like what's what's not good to do. And then the last thing was like should early career scientists also review papers. And I think, yes, absolutely. And we always strive to have diversity within our pools of reviewers so they have to be at least two so I always try to assign like one early career scientist or like people from like from Europe and the US and from different communities and different backgrounds. And I think, because everything is public in the end that's also a useful opportunity to learn about like how to do a good review and how other people review. And so the only problem for early career scientists if like if neither the authors nor me know your name, then it's hard to assign you as a reviewer. So that that's pretty much the only the only thing that like, if I know someone and I know they're an expert as an early career scientist, I would also assign them as a reviewer. All right, so that was everything I wanted to say. Thank you so much. Now I'd like to introduce Dr Georgina King, who is an editor for the Geocrinology Journal, which is one of the newer EU journals. Thanks very much. So hi everyone. As has really been said, I'm an editor for Geocrinology. Just before I talk about the journal, I'll just give you a brief overview of my career to date. So I'm presently an assistant professor at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. But before that, I started life as a geographer actually at the University of Oxford before doing a PhD in Earth Sciences at St Andrews in Scotland. So I changed to kind of harder science progressively. But even during my bachelor degree, I started to work on the luminescent stating method, which is my particular field of expertise. So I'm really interested in developing this technique and applying it to novel geomorphological questions. So trying to answer unresolved debates by modifying the method. After my PhD, I held postdoc positions at Aberystwyth in Wales before moving to Switzerland to the University of Lausanne. I then held a job as the head of a luminescence laboratory in Germany at the University of Cologne before obtaining a personal fellowship and moving to the University of Bern before finally getting my position back here in Lausanne in 2018. The 2018 was quite a busy year because I started a new job and I was also part of the team that launched geochronology, which is one of the newest EGU journals. So this was the journal is really the brainchild of Professor Andreas Lang from the University of Salzburg. And the motivation behind launching the journal is that geochronology often is not recognized as a discrete discipline within the earth sciences, even though it's fundamental to most of the other research that we do as earth scientists. And that is something which is starting to change. So in the US, there's been a big movement towards having geochronology as a separate division within some of the US based meetings. The moment we don't have a separate division within EGU, and rather the research that would be submitted to geochronology is spread to spread across various divisions. So climate, geomorphology, cryosphere, chemistry, mineralogy, petrology and volcanology. So we have a really diverse group of scientists that do submit to the journal. One of the are kind of hopes or objectives with geochronology is that it will offer a platform for advances in geochronological methods. In the different scientists working on specific areas in geochronology will be able to interact with other fields of geochronology so that we can ultimately improve the quality of dating and that's so that you can take. For example, statistical methods such as from appetite fishing track dating have been employed in luminescence dating, although admittedly a bit before geochronology was launched. So we're hoping that we can facilitate this kind of dialogue between different method methodological disciplines. And so far the submissions are doing really well we have around, we handle around 40 papers each year, and that's been fairly stable since since we launched. Now something that's quite nice at the moment, because we're a very young journal, we don't currently have any publishing costs or publishing charges, rather it does cost but the costs are met by EGU rather than by the authors. At the moment we haven't yet obtained our impact factor. Although we've present like recently been accepted to be listed in scopus and that's the first step towards obtaining an impact factor, which will hopefully come in the next couple of years. We accept a range of different types of articles so from research articles as your classic kind of scientific article review articles. Something that's maybe more exciting or interesting is that we also accept short communications and technical notes, and the technical notes in particular are really important for geochronological research, because it's those methodological developments that often aren't communicated well, that can really make the difference between having okay ages or a precision of 15% and maybe a precision of 5%. The date, the majority of our submissions have been research articles, but we anticipate that we'll get more short communications and technical notes, as well as research articles, of course, in the future. We've only run one special issue to date and that was on uranium lead dating of carbonate, but again, we will have more special issues in the future. With regard to specific comments for ECS researchers, our top tips for article submission. If you're uncertain if the article falls within the remit of the journal or geochronology specifically, then feel free to contact one of the editors before you submit your paper, just to get some feedback on whether or not it does fit within the journal scope. And our policy of geochronology is absolutely that ECS researchers should review articles, and this is something that was communicated actively within our most recent editorial meeting. So that all of our topical editors are aware that they should be approaching final year PhD students or experienced junior researchers to get them to start reviewing articles. And I think that's everything that I had to say. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. And I'd like to introduce our final speaker, who is a chief editor of the Earth Systems Science Data or ESSD journal for short, Geir Ping. Thank you. Hi everybody, my name is Geir Ping, and I go with Ping. I'm a senior principal researcher scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. My career is sort of separated in three different stages. I started with developing, implementing and evaluating numerical model systems, and then migrating to working with the data. I noticed my passion seems to be more on the data, so it's to produce and use and evaluate Earth system data product. In the last five, 10 years, I start to actually turn into more data scientists to be more focused as a scientific data store. What I do is trying to find a way to improve data access and data usability to make it easier for users to use data, understand data and access data. So part of that interest lead me to become one of the four chief editors at Earth Systems Science Data. And I'm also a chair for WMO, which is World Meteorology Organization Expert Team on Information Management. That's a quick recap on myself, and I'm going to talk more about the Earth Systems Science Data. It's a data journal. It's an international interdiscipline, and they started in 2009 as part of the international polar year to bridge research and data. And at that time, there are not a whole lot of place that scientists can publish their data as well as a paper about the data. The journals tend to focus more on scientific research. The ESSD is a fully open and free journal. It's published by Copernick publishers. They have been committed and supporting ESSD since it's starting. So in early 2010, we had about eight papers for that particular year. It has been increasing steadily since then, had a big jump in 2018 as a part of the effort in the global carbon budget. Last year, we had almost 200 paper published, and this year, at the end of September, we already exceed that number. The ESSD also partnered with the data centers around the world, and we worked with them to improve the data access. And we are promoting no barrier data access. I mean, not just the developed countries, also the developing countries will be able to access the latest data for their research. Touch on a little bit about the process, the initial validation of the paper is carried out by the Copernick supporting team. And we have about 10 days to call for topic editors, so they actually get to pick the papers they would like to oversee the review process. And then there's the initial screening in term of the data access and whether it's publicly available and can be freely accessed after the paper is accepted for publications. And then six weeks interactive review process, as Julia has mentioned, were similar to that process, and during which community can post their comments, along with the peer reviewers. The authors are also encouraged to post their responses. And at the end of the six to eight weeks interactive review process, the topic editors would take a quick look, make an intermediate decision, see whether the paper should go ahead. And whether the paper should be rejected based on the review comments. I should mention at the first initial screening that also including whether the paper is out of scope. The ESSD will focus on data and some the basic validation result to support the quality to demonstrate the quality of a data set is encouraged by not extensive analysis paper. After the authors revise their paper, potentially it could go to another round of review by the previous reviewers, or the, if it's very minor and authors have already addressed the updates and suggestions. The topic editor can make decision to accept the paper, either with another minor revision, including technical revision, or accept as it is. So they are two stage for the papers that assign DOI, the people can cite them. One is the just we call it discover discussion paper as a during the interactive review process. And another one is a final accepted paper, and the, the both are publicly available and siteable and ESSD track the views downloads and citations of both versions and the one can go to their website to look at it. So the, let me see mention the impact factor so the as many of people know the data papers do not get a lot of credit initially, but it has changed recently. In the last five years, the decade also ESD impact factor actually has been pretty steadily increased. And this last year is 11.3, and this top three geo census journals, although that's a great accomplishment, but ESSD is really focused on sharing high quality data product. Around the world. Um, so that's something about the journal as far as the papers, and I'm going to. I think Julian and Georgia has have provided a lot of good comments, and I'm going to try to see from the scientist and the editor. You know perspective and more from the people who are trying to publish. So for the, your first five papers, and my suggestion is to think about as a more of ongoing process, rather than, you know, do everything then set down to ready a paper. Take a nose along the way, because some the best contents of my paper coming from the, the nose I took along the way. And another part aspect is that when they starting with tend to want to be everything to be perfect. And what my advice is actually Once you have enough Materia, and if you have a good story to tell that's an indication that you are ready to put together paper. On one time, a famous scientist told us graduate student and he said if the paper their research didn't publish. It's like you have that research has never been down. So the making a publishing thinking about how you want to put together a story to readers and to your other. The people in your domain that will be beneficial to them to learn. I think that's something to keep in mind as you go along preparing your first paper offers five papers. Regarding to the criticisms. Julie says, take it very seriously. I agree with that because the most people who provide the reviews are expert in the field. On the other hand, I also want to mention that do not take that criticism against yourself. And I used to take it a very hard because for me it's like I want everything's perfect before a Senate and I get this real back they want a major revision is like what do you mean you want a major revision. So now I actually will come in because you think about it and you actually give somebody expert in the field and offer they are expert opinion for free. And it's a great way to improve your quality of your paper. As the last part about the getting involved in reviewing papers. Yes, absolutely. Whether it's a postdoc or early career scientist. And I think you can start it as letting the topic editors know you are interested in providing review and kind of starting from there and I'm sure the similar situation with other journals. Yes, they always always looking for topic editors, and the numbers paper submitted this year has doubled and we are in dire need for topic editors, as well as reviewers. One of the advantage, in my opinion, is you get to learn the latest. The science and you get to learn the latest train of the research. Let me see. Yeah, I have something about this like data repository at the journals, but I think I'm going to stop here. And probably we will discuss that in the later part of this meeting. Thank you very much. Just to the audience as a reminder, please post your questions that you have in the Q&A box. You can also do this anonymously if you wanted to, and also feel free to start any discussion in the chat. We do have a few questions that came in a bit earlier as we advertise this session on Twitter. So one question I'll start off by aiming this towards Georgina. People are a bit nervous about the fact that it's an open access discussion, the reviews and everything are open access, especially if it's your first paper. How do you, what advice would you give to people? I think the experience that we've had so far is that the quality of the reviews is higher than you would get in most kind of classical journals where they're not on public display. So I think, yes, there's no guarantee that you won't have a critical evaluation of your work, but ultimately critical evaluations of our work make the research better. And as Peng said, it's really important not to take those criticisms personally to step back, digest it, maybe take a day off, drink some tea, eat some chocolate, whatever, and then come back to the reviews and really think about what people have said. Because it is a real privilege, actually, to get critical scientific feedback on your research. But coming back to the open review issue, I think you should not be put off by that process. I believe it will be the future way that the publishing goes, and really we're kind of ahead of the game with EGU by having this open review process. Thank you very much. And now to Julianne, as you're a topical editor and relatively new into this field, how did you become a topical editor? Did you approach the journal yourself, and do you feel like you needed a certain level of experience in reviewing before you did that? So for me, like Susanna Boyd had just sent me an email and asked, oh, do you want to be a topical editor for Solid Earth? And so I said, yes, sure, that sounds great. But I know Solid Earth is also looking for a topical editor. So I know recently we were looking for someone to look at gravity papers. So I think, like if you're interested in becoming a topical editor, I would just talk to one of the, or like if you know one of the executive editors, or even if you don't know them, I would just approach them and talk about it. I didn't think much about like if I needed a certain expertise, but I think what's nice about the structure with the topical editors is that you really only need to be an expert in your field of expertise. So I think, like even if you're a postdoc, like you probably know a lot about the field that you study. And so I think the most important thing that I noticed was, I mean you also have the reviewers, and the reviewers are experts. And so even if I myself am not an expert in a specific paper, and that happens that I handle papers where I just don't know much about the topic. As long as I can, like as long as I can identify reviewers who are an expert on the topic, then I can just rely on their opinion. And so then even if I don't know much about a specific paper, I can still handle that as an editor. So I don't think it's required to know everything about all of the papers you would handle as an editor. And do you think that also stands for if you're asked to review a paper and you might not be an expert if it's quite an interdisciplinary paper? Would you feel comfortable if an ECS or somebody reviewing approached you and said, I can review, but I'm only an expert in half of the paper? So I think especially for interdisciplinary papers as an editor I would make sure that I get a reviewer from each discipline that the paper covers. And so if it's more than two, I would also get more than two reviewers. And so I think that's totally fine as long as you let the editor know you're only an expert on one specific topic. Okay, great. And now a question to you, Peng. You mentioned the data repository service and with ESSD papers you want everything to be open access. So the code, the data, et cetera. Could you tell us a bit more about that? Yeah, for now, actually, ESSD requires data to be freely available and publicly accessible. And we are tours promoting to have a source code available as well. And it can be in a GitHub repository. So we tend to work with the data centers and domain centers. However, we do have repositories that people, you know, encourage people to deposit data in the repositories. And that they are a number of the repositories now would accept the data and assign a DOI. And I can put the link that people can use to find a repository if you don't have domain repository that you can utilize. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And I think this is the case across the board with the EGU journals that they're trying to be a bit more open access, not just in their reviews, but also suggesting that people can upload data and code. So do you think that this is, did ESSD kind of launch the way for the rest of the EGU journals? That's an interesting claim. I will put it this way. I think ESD has the leading the data sharing because we have from start to kind of insist and promoting that data. ESD is available. I think AGU journals, I think Georgia probably can see more about that and has been the promoting open access in the last five, 10 years, I think it's really gaining more and more momentum. ESD is also kind of leading the data publications because at the beginning, you know, data is not sexy and scientists tend to look down on the people who produce, although they use data, they tend to say that's not scientifically in terms of the scientific but I think I have seen that change and I'm doing more data papers now. And I feel like they get cited because a lot more because data get to use it, which is great because people who produce data get credit to not just the scientists who do research and based on the data and writing scientific papers and I think that's a great thing. OK, that's great. Thank you. So we have a question from an early career scientist who says that sometimes they see publications that they believe might they might have been suitable for as a reviewer, but perhaps they're not within this reviewer circuit yet. How could they try to be involved more as a reviewer? I think one of you mentioned perhaps approaching someone that you might know, but is there any other way that people could could kind of try to join the reviewer circuit? Georgina, maybe you have something on this. Yeah, I meant I meant to look this up actually before we started the webinar. There is a reviewer database for EGU journals. I'm not entirely sure how you enter the database, whether it's because you previously reviewed for EGU, but that's something I believe that exists. So if you're interested in being a reviewer and you haven't been approached, if you contact the executive editors of your particular field journal, then they'll be able to check that for you. Sorry that I can't give you a conclusive answer. Maybe Julianne or Peng knows. Yeah, I think any of those way would work. We have early career scientists writing emails, just contact us saying, you know, we're interested and how can I help. And we will put them on the list in the database. And for ESSD and all the people who published with us are in the database, and they are the pools that we draw from one way as a topic editor to enlist people to review paper, review the manuscript. So one other thing I would also mention so of course there's like you can contact like people who are at the journal, but one other way is also you can like talk to your advisor about that because they probably get a lot more review requests and they can handle. And so if they know you want to review a paper, they also know what your expertise is so they can then just tell the journal, oh, I can't do this but my student or my post or they would be really interested in doing that. And as an editor, I'm really happy if I know, oh, there's someone who really wants to review and who will like put a lot of time into writing a good review. So that would also be another way. Thank you. I think that actually leads quite nicely on to the next question that we have which is how many and is it crucial that you suggest a review of your paper when you submit your paper. Julianne perhaps you can say. So I think it's really useful if you do that. And well, I don't think there's a specific number. I mean, so, but what I can say is, like, when I contact like when I contact reviewers, at least 50% of them say no at oftentimes more. So it happens that I contact like 10 different people and they all say no. So it can be useful to have a list of more than two people if you like suggest reviewers. And what I usually do is I try to pick someone like one person from the list that the authors provide and then one person that's not on the list who I know will be an expert on the topic. And so like, and I think especially if like I'm not an expert in the topic that the paper is on then it's really, really useful for me to have a list of reviewers that that I could contact. Okay, great. I think this next question will probably go to Georgina but also to Peng because you've got both quite interdisciplinary journals as you've mentioned. If someone is unsure whether their paper should fit this journal, because it is quite a broad topic or go to the one that is a bit more specific, do you have any advice for these people on which direction to take. I can comment first. It's always a difficult question where where's the best place to publish your research. One way that you can try and evaluate the best location is have a look at the papers that you've cited in the article and see which journal the majority of those papers come from, because that might give you an indication of where where your paper would be most at home. Yeah, I guess, I guess that would be my, my main advice and also to contact the editors of the journals and to see whether or not that would fit in the remit, and to see which prior work has been published in each of those journals on on the topic, but perhaps Peng has something to add. That's pretty good to cover. I think almost everything I would like to say. Okay, great. And another question that we have now sort of targets a special issues. If you see that there is a special issue that might be relevant for your work, do you think it is useful to submit to the special issue, or is it better to submit to the journal in general is there a kind of a target audience for the special issue. I can't remember which one of you mentioned special issue but I think it might be new Georgina. It was me. I think that really depends on the timing of the of the special issue relative to when you're ready to submit your paper. So special issues often have deadlines deadlines are a good thing in terms of getting articles finished, but you also don't want to rush and and submit something that's not ready. If you're, if we had a special issue in uranium lead dating of carbonate, if you're working on exactly that, then I think that would be a fantastic place for your research. If you're working on uranium lead dating of zircon, then although it's the same uranium lead dating it's not not the right avenue for your article, so you do need to consider. Another thing to think about is sometimes special issues have paid restrictions. That would mean writing your research in a particular way, which may or may not be appropriate. If it's one paper that you've produced from all your PhD work, then it's probably a longer article and being restricted to six pages or something would not be in the best interests of your of your research. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Add something to that. So I think as a Georgia said, if you're the topic and the time of your paper fits in a special journal. I would encourage you to submit to the special journal. And there are a couple reasons one is first one is the targeted audience. So you have a two different way of promoting your paper and the journal journal journal journal on the general side the journal would publicize the paper and the special issue, it will go also get promoted. The second factor is that the usually have a designated topic editors for the special journal, and they also know the expert in the domains. So it tend to the reveal process tend to go smooth compared to sometimes in other ones. Like Julian said, sometimes we go through like a 10, my, you know, I, I maximum ones make me go through 2030, you know, the, the nominations. So that from that perspective, I will encourage you. So yes, they actually do do special issues. And we collaborate with science journals, we would be like a two part we call it science paper that was submitted to other general that focused on the scientific result, and the, the ESD would focus on the data aspect for the data papers. Okay, thank you very much. We do only have a couple of minutes left before we start to wrap up the discussion but I'm going to try and squeeze in a few more questions in the meantime. Julian, I think you mentioned keywords which were ideal for assigning the right sort of topical editors to the, to the paper. Are there any other tips that you can give in that kind of way to make it an easier process for editors when you're submitting your paper. So I can think off of anything right now. I mean, it's like, it's easy for an editor if like the editor knows exactly like what what the paper is about and like what reviewers to ask. So I mean, we already covered like providing a list of reviewers and like providing a cover letter so that it's then really clear to me. Yeah, what what the paper is about and who I have to send it out to review. And I mean, otherwise like the other thing in terms of making the review process smooth is like before you submit your paper check that like it's 100% in the state that you wanted to be in. So right the better your paper is before you submitted the like the fewer comments reviewers will have. So like sometimes I see papers where I notice oh someone was like in a hurry to submit the paper. And like something is like even it's like a figure captions don't fit to the right figure or something like that so I would just say, like, just make sure that your paper is in the quality you want to see it published before you submit. And I think at the word like, otherwise the process is really straightforward. So like as an editor I find it really hardest like the first stage of like if I have to ask a lot of reviewers and then they all decline. So like I think that's that's a good point to like have a list of reviewers that I can send the paper out to. And again, just going back to touching on the sort of open access sort of side of things. Sometimes I think people are unsure of where they can use the figures and the information going forward with it being an open access paper. So are people allowed to sort of redistribute these figures if they have a blog or a website or perhaps they want to, you know, show some results at a conference, or do they still have to go through some process to ensure that the right person is cited. I should probably say who should answer this question. I think perhaps you can take this one. Yeah, all the journals have the usage license. And I think people who utilize figures or diagram they really should properly site where it's come from and give the quality to whoever produced that particular one. And they also need to be careful about if the usage of the diagram, you know, the figures indicate their preparatory, and they really needs to get up to the copyright in order to use that. But I think currently most scientific papers are under the CC, the common license that you can, you know, you can use and freely distributed if it's for non commercial purpose or some even just, you know, to communicate, it should be no problem, but definitely pay attention. It is not like depends on the type of the license. Yeah, so I would also say like that that goes for like every journal. Like if you want to reuse any figure that has been published anywhere, you need to go into like where it says what is the license of this journal and then you need to read through the license and like read what it allows you to do with it. And like almost all of the journals as far as I know allow you to use figures if you give a presentation at a conference. At least if it's like your own work that like you have published and then you want to reuse your own figures for a talk like that's usually no problem at all, but like for example just posting something on a block. That's not always possible like depending on what license the journal has. And if it's an open access journal then this is much easier than for journals with restricted access but I would always make sure to check what exactly the licenses. That's fantastic. Thank you very much. So I think the final question to sort of wrap up the discussion would be if you had one sort of top tip to give to scientists and early career scientists on how to have a really successful experience with publishing with an audio journal. What would you say? Let's start with Georgina. Oh, top tip. I guess just do it. Just do it. Don't hesitate. Go for the process. Enjoy the open review profits from the feedback and the fact that you can have that discussion in public. And maybe try and discuss with your peers and encourage them to join the discussion on your work because, yeah, I mean it's a great opportunity to get that feedback. Ping. Yes, I agree. Just do it and the practice make it better. And also try to think about, rather than what you have done what you did try to think about what the message what a story you want a reader to learn from your work. And Julianne, finally. Yeah, so I just want to add like the the open review process is like I found it less scary than I thought initially so I also was afraid of like oh like this means like all of the people in the community then now suddenly can like comment on your paper and you have to reply to all of those comments. But like in the in the end when I like so with as a co-author submitted a journal to one of a paper to one of the EU journals, I was like, like in the end this was much less scary than I thought and it was like more similar to like other journals review processes, then I had thought. And so I like for me it was a really good experience. So I would also say yeah just just go ahead and submit to one of the EU journals. Thank you so much to our three speakers today, we really appreciate your time and your top tips for a successful publication process. For anybody who would want to continue the discussion a bit more in a few weeks time this webinar will be uploaded to our YouTube channel the YouTube YouTube channel. So take a look on there. And also if you want to pass on the link to any of your colleagues who might be interested for now. Thank you very much for joining and goodbye.