 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to today's webinar. My name is Chloe Hill and I'm the Policy Officer for the European Geosciences Union. I'm very happy to welcome you to the webinar today that will aim to answer all of your questions about open access. Now, if you aren't already aware, the EGU actually runs these webinars on a relatively regular basis, so about once per month. But today's webinar is a little bit different because instead of having our regular three to four panellists who present some information, it will be a one-on-one interview. And this interview series is something that we are going to do more of throughout 2021. So if you do have suggestions about particular topics you think we should focus on or specific speakers you think we should invite to one of these webinar interviews, please do let us know. You can comment down in the chat box or if you're watching the recording on YouTube, you can actually put it into the comment section down below. We really do welcome all suggestions. Now, today we are featuring Ulrich Plutul who has a PhD in chemistry from the Technical University of Graz. He is the director of the Multiface Chemistry Department at the Max Plank Institute for Chemistry and a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University. Ulrich is a founder and co-chair of the International Open Access Initiative OA 2020. He is also the founder and editor in chief of the EGU's Open Access Journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics or ACP as it is commonly known. He is also the former chair and current member of the EGU's Publications Committee. So welcome, Ulrich. Chloe for the kind introduction and good afternoon everyone. Alright, so I'm going to get to our very first question now. Now, Ulrich, you clearly have a good understanding of publishing in Europe and have been advocating for open access for a long time. Open access and open science are terms that are being used more and more frequently, but for those people who are watching today who might not know what these terms mean, can you give a short explanation of what they are, the difference between open access and open science and what a DOI is and why it's important for open access publishing? Yeah, so maybe let's start out with the biggest term that's open science, right? So this is really all sorts of open approaches to the scientific enterprise, both to the products, to the raw data, to source code, to all tools. So it really, open science essentially includes open access as a key component to which we come back, of course, later on. Then open data, meaning that you really have open access and free usage of data as they are being gathered or later on. And then also open source is coming more from the engineering sector, right, with code, but that's also relevant, of course, for scientific research. And then also the whole area of citizen science, right, involving people. So all this comes together in open science. And indeed open access was one of the very first pillars, you could say, or elements of open science, namely to give and generate access, free access and free use. So it's more than just free access. It's really getting to the stuff really, but then also reusing it properly on the web and for other purposes for scientific research publications. So usually the term open access really refers to this access and reuse of scientific research publications in journals or other formats. And then in some ways, it sometimes also includes other, for example, artifacts in museums or the like. So in the humanities, it's then used a bit broader for books and so on. But when we discuss it in the scientific area, science, technology, medicine, it's really mostly about journal articles and other publication formats that you may have. And maybe just to add still here before getting to the DOI. So open science is something very good that we should pursue at all levels, but in some areas there are some subtleties. For example, open data is a very good thing. But there is a legitimate interest, for example, for a PhD student to use their data during their PhD work and maybe also a little bit after that before sharing all their data with the entire world before they even have finished their PhD work, for example. But the postdoc is in a similar situation and senior scientists sometimes also. So open data is very good, but it's more delicate how and when to implement and so on, right? Similar with open source, whereas open access is really a no brainer because publications from the very Latin original term are meant to be publicly available. That's why it's called publication. And so in that sense, open access is really a no brainer. It was started for preprints already by the high energy physicists at CERN in the early 1990s, at the beginning of the 1990s. And then actually at EGU, we were among the very early open access proponents before even the term was coined in 2002-2003. There were several declarations for open access, but EGU already started out this approach in the year 2000. So that's quite a while back. And maybe to get back to the other part, the digital object identifier is one way and currently I think the most prominent and most widespread way of uniquely identifying individual objects on the Internet in particular or any digital object, which is of course important to keep track of different versions or so you normally want to use them different DOIs, digital object identifiers. But again, we started, for example, open access without DOIs. So we did open access publishing when DOIs were then again only starting and you can also do other naming systems that are very systematic versioning also and so on on the Internet. So DOI is really just one very important but just one way of identifying uniquely identifying objects in the Internet. Yeah. Okay, I think that's a really nice introduction into the topic, especially for those people who might not have heard the terms before. So a bit more of a personal question now, you've obviously been working in this area for a really long time. Can you tell us a little bit about what first sparked your interest in open access and why you do think it is open access publishing is so important? Yeah, yeah, that's actually a funny story in a way because indeed for us originally open access was more of a byproduct rather than a goal in itself. So when several colleagues and I really started this kind of interactive open access publishing with EGU, with the journal atmospheric chemistry and physics, we were mostly concerned about public peer review. So we wanted to make peer review more transparent, more efficient and effective, more thorough also actually. This would be a topic for a whole separate interview, I guess, but we can prove now since 20 years that this works extremely well. I mean, transparency is important in every sector of societal life, whether it's politics or anything else, right, without transparency, it's very hard to keep things straight in any kind of community and society. And so this transparency also really works very, very well in our peer review system. It's a kind of a self regulation that people think more carefully what to put online in the first place to avoid being taken apart for stupid mistakes or whatever. On the other hand, when people have questions or even concerns, you can publicly clarify and straighten that out. So this was very attractive from the beginning. And so this was really our approach to this whole thing. And Anne Richter, who was back then the executive secretary of EGU or rather of one of the predecessors EGS, he told us young guys who wanted to start this new public peer review. He said, well, if we do it on the internet, let's make it free. These were his words and we said, oh, yeah, sure. That's nice. And so then we developed this free access so to say right in parallel to archive.org was already there for preprints and one or two journals in the physics community, the new journal of physics and a couple of other things. But these were individual really accessible initiatives on the internet. And then only a couple of years later in the Budapest Bethesda and Berlin declarations. Open access was defined like I explained it earlier on. And so then it was coined open access and then over the years I realized that even without public peer review still actually efficient peer review and discussion is more near and dear to my heart than near open access so to say. But over these many years I realized that open access alone is already really a key ingredient to modern science, not just open science. And it's a no brainer and really urgently needed, especially now in these days of alternative facts and post factual claims and so on. So we need to make public or scientific knowledge publicly accessible and usable. So, one of the, there are actually besides public peer review and this interactive approach of EGU to open access to me there are two other key issues. One is to reintegrate scientific and common knowledge, for example, to allow Wikipedia to use also good plots and graphs right mostly the contents of Wikipedia are quite okay, depending on where you look or very good even. But the graphs are not so great because they are not allowed to copy and use proper scientific graphs. And so this is one very important thing and another very important thing for science itself is to end this citation counting only go poly that we have had forever with the web of science. The ISI it was called in the past now it's clarivate analytics. These are commercial companies that provide good services for some purposes but science should not rely on one commercial company to do all its analysis of scientific output. There are also Scopus and Google Scholar, but these are all commercial entities with their own commercial interests and only open access actually allows science to regulate itself with proper citation and usage counting and how to really use and analyze scientific output. And actually, it enormously important point nowadays to go beyond this citation counting only go poly of the past with article level metrics and all these things. So I think, again, the short answer is open access is really advancing both science in itself, very much the scientific discourse and exchange, but also the outreach of science to the public and to deliver to society. Very, very passionate answer and you also you already mentioned EGU journals a little bit there and EGU has had open access publications for well over 15 years now. In 2020, EGU decided to evolve its publishing structure to include preprints and rebranded as the EGU sphere. Now, what exactly is the EGU sphere? Can you tell us a little bit how about how it works. So the EGU sphere is now really a big open access repository for all sorts of scientific content. On the one hand, you really have the abstract from conferences and the presentations from conferences you can upload. So this is really a whole microcosm or actually it's a macrocosm of scientific work at all levels. And this is something that is now in this form. Well, it's not new that the abstracts were already online, but for the presentation, it's really a new additional feature. And on the other hand, actually our journals, the interactive open access journals of EGU, since now indeed almost 20 years, I think we should also celebrate that this year actually later this year or next year at the latest, that it's almost 20 years of interactive open access publishing. And there we had from the beginning a preprint server, but it's sort of an upper class preprint server because it's a discussion form, not just preprints, but also preprints together with some preselection and discussion. This we had always with all these journals. Actually, some of the old journals of EGU did not, they had the traditional classical peer review, also no open access for quite a few years. And one more thing that we could demonstrate successfully with EGU is that you can convert traditional subscription journals into open access journals, and you can add a discussion form to any journal and convert it into an interactive open access journal. And this interactive discussion form, as we called it from the beginning in 2000, was already kind of a preprint server, but you had a preselection by editors, whether this manuscript is suitable in principle to be published later on in the journal, right? And a normal preprint server, so to say, like archive.org is the archetype of preprint servers, and now also EGU sphere will also allow to just post a paper, a manuscript, where you are not sure whether you want to go for a classical journal, for a journal somewhere outside EGU later on, or to which of the EGU journals you may want to go, or if you just want to have this manuscript there and don't even aspire for full peer review and acceptance by an editor or editorial board. And so this is now the extension. So to say that we open up for something that we had already at a higher or different level anyhow, but now we unify these across the different journals, we merge them together and open it up also for other types of preprints, not just these discussion papers or preprints, whatever you call it, that then can go into final publication in a journal. And so in a sense, it's really complementing and completing the array of publication venues of EGU, because it was also not a sudden idea. Actually, we had thought about these options, almost also since 20 years, but in the past it was just, we didn't have the capacities to do it in the same way as it is now the case. And now finally both EGU and our service provider Copernicus who does these services for EGU really wanted both to take this step forward and we're able to. And so this is great. I'm really happy that we now have the full portfolio. So to say we can offer to our members but also to any scientist on the planet. We can offer essentially any kind of publication nowadays and that's that's a great step forward. And now this is all under the umbrella of EGU sphere. Great. I'll also just mention to those who have more recently joined the conversation if you have any of your own questions to ask about halfway through my list now so if you have any of your own questions asked you can put those into the Q&A box down the bottom. But onto my next question. So a few people who are listening might already be aware that the submission deadline for the EGU Virtual General Assembly is coming up actually already next week. And in previous years some members have been a little bit concerned about submitting an abstract covering research that isn't yet published because it's going to be shared online. So some researchers worry that someone else might use their ideas and that kind of thing. And is there a risk to publishing open access data before it has been fully peer reviewed? Well, let me put it this way. There is always a risk in any kind of scientific communication and publication that in the end people might not give you the full credit that you deserve for sharing your ideas no matter which way you do it, right? So in fundamentally there is a certain risk but this risk is not so much greater than in other forms of publishing. So, and here we have to distinguish one thing is open access as such once the publication is a publication and you have it open access, there is actually no additional risk at all it's just the same risk as traditionally, right? And so it's not really related to open access but in sort of sharing things a bit earlier than after the peer review as you said. There is of course a certain risk that somebody if you then are very slow and somebody picks your idea and publishes it peer reviewed faster than you do, then you might get less credit than you deserve. That's true. But on the other hand, anything that you post on the internet in a permanent way and all of this stuff is meant to be permanently out there, the preprints and the discussion papers of our journals and abstracts and so on. It is already a publication so we had actually long nowadays the whole scientific community and not just science but also in the humanities and everywhere. One is sort of converging on the terms posting a preprint and so on, right? And to distinguish it a bit from publication but if you're really serious about terminology which is always good for a scientist, then you have to say that also a preprint is a publication, full stop, right? Because you have published the stuff so making it publicly available and it's just not a peer reviewed publication, right? And this is actually for abstracts, it's also very common. So I would say the short answer within the long one is I wouldn't be concerned at all about publishing an abstract early on because this is very common since ever actually, right? I mean a conference presentation and the abstract of the conference are non peer reviewed in our field, right? There is the electronics engineering field or so there actually these are very rigorously peer reviewed and are the main form of publishing there. But in our field it's typically a light peer review if at all, but a session conlina but then it's published out there and it always has been like that, right? And so this I wouldn't be worried at all. What is a bit more to be considered is whenever you put the preprint online, if you want to pursue peer reviewed publication to get full credit for a peer reviewed product, right? Peer reviewed article. Then you should of course keep going in order to avoid somebody bypassing you inadvertently or intentionally. But again, we had these discussions intensely in the early 2000s or in 2000, 2001 when we launched ACP with these discussion papers and that was really back then in this form unheard of in our field. But there we could convince authors also that the advantages of putting out the preprint or discussion papers outweigh the real advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages of somebody stealing your idea or so normally this doesn't happen fortunately, especially not in public, whereas sometimes if you go for hidden traditional peer review, some of the reviewers maybe competitors and your paper may get rejected and it has happened to many scientists that here or there one or the other idea did migrate without full credit. And actually this is much more of a risk in traditional hidden peer review than it is nowadays in public peer review and in posting where you can always say, hey guys, I posted this half a year earlier. So obviously I should also get some credit for this nice idea. So I think openness in the end, in the end it always helps and pays off in science and even in general. Good. So that can be some encouraging words to anyone who might be looking to submit their abstract in the next week. Absolutely. I would say go for it and then look forward to then having also the opportunity. I'm not even sure if the abstract already can be commented currently. Maybe not yet, but any kind of commenting if you haven't experienced it, you will enjoy it. Also back then really people were very concerned in the early 2000s whether our approach would ever fly, but very soon, especially junior scientists, especially PhD students and postdocs loved it because they would get immediate feedback and recognition and exchange with colleagues and so on whom they wouldn't know otherwise. So I would say just go for it and enjoy the interaction. Great. Great. So I'm going to ask one more of my questions and then one of our participants has also asked a question. So I'll get to theirs after that. So my next question is, can you still publish open access if you're working with confidential data? Now, I think you've already answered this somewhat. Hardly, yes, but let me go for it explicitly. So it's linked, it is related of open access and open data, but it's not the same thing. I think actually also some traditional subscription closed access journals demand that you disclose the data that you are using either the whole data set in a data repository or at least the data that you have in the plots in your article need to be added also in a table at the end or in the supplement or so. This is a matter of good practice in principle, both in traditional subscription journals, which hopefully won't exist much longer actually, we are working on it to convert everything into open access, which is long overdue anyhow. And then again, the open data thing is a bit more tricky, because indeed I'm also of the opinion that things where you publish data in a plot, you should make these very same data also accessible. Anyhow, people can also read it off the plot electronically and so on. It's just good practice to make that accessible. If you have more data that are just underlying your analysis. Again, for the reasons outlined before, for people who have worked for years on this project and then also would like to have a few more months or even a couple of years to work on their own data before everybody else does it. I think this is a legitimate interest, although it's also nice to immediately share data there is a balance. And so in that sense, ideally, of course, you combine open access publications, papers with open data and actually open source as well. So one of our EU interactive open access journals Geo scientific model development, which is also very successful and very visible. They actually request open source also so if you publish there a model description and evaluation, you must essentially I'm not sure if and how many exceptions they allow, you must also make the whole code fully accessible. And all journals encourage you to make data available also and code available, but we don't fully enforce it necessarily because there are again subtleties if you want to share or not. But the bottom line is you can publish in open access your article, even if you don't share the data or whatever reason and the only really good reason not to share data is indeed, if these are confidentially sensitive data that you got from some agency environmental agency somewhere who don't want to share it fully or whatever. And this is fully respected so so every journal I know of has a policy that if you have good reasons not to share your data. And then they will accept that whether it's an open access journal or a traditional closed access subscription access journal doesn't matter so also there I would say the short answer is no concerns no worries. Just double check the policy of the specific journal. And if you can make your data available as well because then you simply, you will also profit from others using your data referencing your data citing you, but also the whole planet will profit from having more good scientific data out there. Great. So I'm going to, I'm now going to move on to the question asked by a member of our audience. He says during our interest during this interesting interview, you have spoken about pre prints in physics and geosciences. Have there been some minor controversies with pre print repositories in the past, particularly with the archive X dot org archive. Now in the post truth epoch pre prints have also have also been used to disseminate disinformation. Do you have any idea about how to filter the content in the edu sphere without censoring ideas that may generate generate controversies. Thanks for the great interview. Okay. Well, thank you for the positive feedback and for the very good question indeed. And it's very, very important and valid aspect. So, first of all, in archive.org that was in the past, I think it's a bit clearer described now that was also never totally free to post anything. Because for example, there are countless attempts of, of proving a perpetual mobility or so. And they have also their mechanisms of trying to sort out and who knows I mean maybe something come up comes up one day that opens our eyes to to previously unthinkable things. But in principle, they also always had some ways of trying to keep unscientific papers let's put it like that, out of archive.org. And indeed, this issue of trying to avoid it and all other repositories by now there are a lot of repositories in various fields. All of them are all serious ones right there may be also junk repositories, but all serious scientific repositories try to keep out unscientific stuff. And so, indeed one of the reasons why at EGU we did not advance this regular repository idea so early was also within our journals also for the discussion papers you have a pre selection. And so things that absolutely make no scientific sense we tried. And I think in most cases also succeeded to keep out of our discussion forums already right so this was called access and still is access review. Into the discussion form, then you have the full public peer review, and then you can still iterate the review and then you have the final paper. Now in each year sphere, we will also have this thing and I would like to advertise to everybody present here and others please also convey the message further. We are currently inviting all scientists, I actually also registered as a preprint, preprint moderator we call it for each year sphere. In a double function so to say trying to simply experience it myself don't worry I will not take away the work from everybody else. But especially to junior scientists also to experienced senior PhD students and to postdocs who should have a little bit of experience with publishing themselves otherwise it's a bit hard to judge others work when you haven't even published your own first paper. I mean, judging the work yes but judging a manuscript as such is a bit difficult and right so. But for every junior scientist who has some experience with peer review and publishing the invite them to apply to become preprint moderators. And these will then so if people submit the manuscript it doesn't immediately go online, but somebody out there in the EU community a preprint moderator, or if people try to go then right away for a journal publication but go through each year sphere there will be multiple pathways. Then we'll have a look and say is this scientifically meaningful at all or not. Right. And so if it's a very controversial topic, but scientifically valid, then it should go in there for sure. And we will accompany it. And then one could afterwards post a commentary and official one and say, Well, this is maybe questionable or whatever right and also you would have in the public peer review of journals. You will have reviewers commenting and the editors will accept it or not and so on. This will all be transparent and visible. But the key concern, the very valid concern is not to open the doors to totally unscientific stuff denying the basics of science and so on, and and just muddying the waters essentially. And in order to avoid this we will have this is again sort of access review or moderation into the discussion forum, and we very much hope that junior scientists but again also senior scientists and meritus professors whoever will also join us and help to keep the repository the whole each year sphere at a high scientific level, but a high level from the beginning also our interactive journals were meant to attract controversial papers right so controversy is the essence of science, but it should be constructive discussion controversy is maybe already a bit intense. But still it's real progress comes then out of controversial questions and this discussions right. And so in that sense we welcome controversial manuscripts but they have to have a proper scientific level. And this we will, we certainly will achieve and hopefully very well achieve with this group of preprint moderators so again, if you haven't heard of it, please, afterwards serve on to the ego web page and there you should quite prominently see if you do a search. We'll find it preprint moderator application, and then you will be listed as a preprint moderator and you can then decide about which manuscripts should go in for just being posted or later on can go for peer review and which not and the journal editors will also support that and the Publications Committee all involved parties. Great, I think I think that's an answer we might have to share in our social media as well to get more people interested, even yes. And maybe let me add one thing because I should also advertise that we have had very good experience with our discussion forums of the interactive journals with controversial papers. There's a prominent one in ACP, and maybe still so atmospheric chemistry and physics and maybe also the most, the biggest volume of discussion of all journals so far was the paper by Jim Hansen, the climate scientist he was the first one to to to testify to us a long ago right about climate change. And he had a paper with colleagues in ACP in 2015 right before the Paris conference on the fact it unfortunately it is a fact that climate change might be quite traumatic might become quite traumatic already at two degrees C right so this was the content that two degrees C might also be an awful lot in the end, but it's an open question of course what will always difficult to make predictions, but he raised this issue and then we had for example lots of commentaries. Not lots we had a critically discussion in the scientific community and then a few comments came in from classical not only climate change but science denialists saying, there is no black body radiation no thermal radiation no nothing right so it's the basics of really of modern physics of quantum theory of a lot of things. And so we had a few of these comments. But these were surprisingly easy to stop in this formalized environment when you go to the blogosphere about this Hansen et al paper in 2015, you find thousands of comments of very awkward comments many of them. But in the in our discussion from you find a hundred comments and answers all together and and only a handful of those went really out of the scientific arena and then we also said the editor declares this thread as closed we didn't even have to block anybody or anything. And then it was closed and stopped. And so we were actually pleasantly surprised how well in a proper setting and environment like each you has and now also each use fear will be how well you can regulate a proper scientific discussion. So have a look at Hansen et al. I think it has in the title is includes the term super storms or so because this is one of the concerns that when you have a heating of climate that really storm intensity might go up. And, but you'll find it it's the most commented paper in in atmospheric chemistry and physics. I'm going to check that out after this interview for sure. So I'm actually that brings me to my last question, which is opening, opening the open access up a little bit into a broader context. So I mentioned at the very start of today's webinar that you are a founder of 2020. So I'm wondering away and 2020. 2020 and the coalition s have worked quite closely together in the transformation of open access publishing and the open access landscape in Europe. So if our attendees a bit of an overview about a and what plan s is and how the open access landscape has changed in Europe over the last few years. Yeah, let me just because here it's getting dark. So I just add a bit more light here. Yes. Let me maybe briefly go back to the beginning here. So, in principle, open access that's also very important to emphasize both within science and to the outside is a bottom up initiative right. It's self always to be a bottom up society where really scientists decide how things are run and also really the newcomers and junior scientists and so on all together. Also design the program of the General Assembly and so on and so on. And, and this I think is a high value that we should cherish and bring forward, and it's not top down but bottom up and open access itself was also bottom up so some scientists. There is Paul Ginsberg at CERN, or in the high energy community rather, they then put up this archive.org. And then afterwards various journals come came up including our ego journals, and then only after that, in the years 2002 and the scientific institutions which are still normally led by scientists so it's still sort of bottom up scientific institutions adopted the idea of open access and these declarations the Berlin declaration is the one that was signed by now almost close to 700 scholarly institutions, some of which have themselves hundreds of members. So it's a huge body, majority of leading academic institutions worldwide actually has signed up to this Berlin declaration for open access. It was at the institutional level, but still bottom up. And then from this Berlin declaration and actually the EU was one of the first signatories to the Berlin declaration also and I think it was the first. Research performing organizations like universities or research institutions and so on. And each EU was the first learned society, I believe, or one of the very first who signed up for for this Berlin declaration and demand for open access in 2003. And then over the next few years actually it was also always still also bottom up in the sense that these scientific institutions were pushing the traditional publishers to give them open access and we as each EU and some other societies and more innovative publishers anyhow wanted to offer open access also. And so, this was still a hard struggle and by the year 2013 roughly 10 years after the Berlin declaration, still only some 10% of the whole scientific output was open access, so and this is just too slow progress right we want to have open access now not in 100 years. So then in the early 2010s 2013 around we thought we need to do something more and then I co initiated also this OA2020 initiative, which is still bottom up I'm primarily a scientific researcher and university teacher and not primarily a science administrator or so. And so we said we want this we want to push forward and go for open access OA2020 is more about bringing open access to the scientists rather than pushing scientists into open access most scientists wanted anyhow if they get it right. This is the OA2020 approach. And then fortunately, we had also the exchange with with Robert John Smith's from the European Commission and or Director General for Science and and he and colleagues and Mark Schiltz and others so they science Europe is an entity that then also push this forward. And develop the plan as sort of on top of OA2020 as a top down initiative so in this case really the research funders. So these are the institutions and people running these institutions who provide funding for research projects at the universities or research institutes or wherever. Now we will also demand that people who use the public money for research, make the final product open access which again is a no brainer in principle, but it needed to be set in a good way, and in a clear way. And so it's an excellent compliment. I'm a big fan also of plan as because these compliments OA2020 and our each EU bottom up approach of offering open access to the world. This is demanding open access also from anybody who spends public money essentially that's the idea of plan as top down. And so both together have already crossed fertilized each other over the past few years. And so now we have a rapid increase of open access output, and some countries in Europe have converted up to 60 70% of the whole research output because in open access you have to count the output right what becomes openly available into open access by converting individual articles or journals or whatever. And individual institutions like the Max Planck Society where I'm working and have contributed to that also, we have now already 80% of all our output is open access. Part of it is really proper published proper open access publishing with publishers like each EU and our service provider Copernicus. And part of it are these transformative agreements where you say, I pay the same as in the past for subscriptions, but for paying you the same you give me open access at least for all my authors from my institution. And so in a, in a cost neutral way, you can convert everything to open access and then afterwards, most of these traditional publishers are much more expensive and offer less value actually than each EU Copernicus for much more money. And now actually they can do so in this protected oligopoly of subscription publishing, but by making this transformation, we will force them into a proper competition and market of open access publishing. And so then, they will either deliver much more value or both actually for less money, which is what each EU does and Copernicus offering more value, namely, will publishing with public peer review and public discussion in addition to the traditional system. But then the prices and costs of each EU Copernicus are much lower than the average prices of other open access publishers and the traditional publishers. So for orientation maybe still at the end, because all of the things that I said now in this interview I can back up with with hard numbers, trust me on this one. I won't tell you all the hard numbers from now, but just on this last item on average, every article that has been published over the past decade or so has cost the taxpayer four thousand dollars or euros it doesn't matter right this the exchange rate is that's in the noise, but four thousand is the number there right and the average Copernicus each EU article, which where the quality is on average higher this is mirrored by many parameters including impact factors and all these things. If anything, then it's better than the average of other publications. And it is actually much better than the average. It's really in the upper upper tier and and this was for less than 2000 euros right maybe only 1500 or so it was almost only a third it always depends on how you count the tax and its euros or dollars or whatever. But the bigger picture is it's half the price or one third of the price for the average article from all other publishers traditional subscription publishers, although our value visibility reuse through being open access and so on is a lot higher right you could argue multiple times higher because of the openness, but in terms of impact including impact factor and visibility and other quality metrics. It's also higher than average right so there is a huge discrepancy here and we and this discrepancy has persisted now since almost the year 2000 2001 right. So, but at least for 10 years from 2003 to 2013 much too little has happened. And now for the past few years we have ramped things up again bottom up that's us top down that's plan s. And so I'm very confident that in the near future, we will be able to establish open access at the global scale for most research publications. And as I said before, individual countries and institutions achieved already in 2020, which is why we chose the term away 2020 achieved already the goal of having a majority namely 60 to 80% already in open access so we are doing quite well. And we just need to together further momentum and maintain the momentum. And then I think we'll be there in an open access environment where we can shape science even much nicer for the near future. And I would really like to invite everyone again to engage in each use fear where we can really then shape the open access environment again in a bottom up way to the liking of scientists and in particular also junior scientists of what is good and useful for them. Okay, I think that is a fantastic place to leave this interview this webinar interview. Thank you so much for your time, Lee, and we hope to see you soon. Thanks so much. Many thanks and a happy new year to everyone.