 to see you or hear you and not listen to me. So if they miss my opening spiel, that's absolutely fine, I'm sure. Is that all right with you, Andrew? Absolutely fine. Great. Thanks for inviting me. Good. Thanks for being here. And thanks for everyone for being here. So hello and welcome to our first Kings College London School of Security Studies Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Cafe Chat, EDI Cafe Chat for short. My name is Amanda Chisholm, and I'm a senior lecturer in the school teaching and researching on gender and global security. I am also the school lead on EDI. These cafes were started as an opportunity for us to engage on important aspects of EDI in higher education and to highlight where challenges to achieving equality, diversity, and inclusion stubbornly stick, question why this might be the case, but also highlight where interventions are working. Today our Cafe Chat is focusing on gender publishing gap within IR and global security studies journals most broadly. We begin this chat with the question, do women publish less? Of course, we know the answer is yes. We have an established scholarship of quantitative and qualitative based research that highlights this is the case. Just want to point now to international affairs editor, Leah Dehan captures the stats well in her recent editorial. She quotes while women make up 31.8% of ISA memberships and 36% of PSA memberships to international professional international relation bodies. Articles authored by women in lead IR journals sits anywhere from 20 to 30%, so there's still a significant gap there. Why women publish less has also been researched. I'll just mention a few studies here. A 2019 global security studies publication authored by Ruebley, Jackson, Parijon, Peterson, and Duncombe drew upon a 2019 survey of international security studies section members, that's a subsection of ISA, to find women's and men's experiences of this section vastly differed. Women were far more likely to define this ISA section as an old boys network, insular, and hostile to women. And I think this study speaks to the inability for some members to feel like they fit in to these intellectual spaces that are designed to support creativity that is necessary foundation to publishing. Who holds secure academic positions also matters in our ability to publish. A 2015 ISA survey showed that men were over-represented in permanent positions, and women were over-represented in precarious ones. In the UK, the situation is even more dire with Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups. In 2019, the UK had only 25 Black women professors compared to 4,340 white women professors and 12,790 white men in the academy. A recent article that was authored by Wright, Hastrum, and Greena, Equality's and Freefall, shows how these aforementioned stats continue to place women, BAME, and LGBTQI plus in structurally precarious positions. And holding these positions means that achieving the markers of academic success that is publishing and getting funding are more difficult to achieve. And COVID-19 certainly exacerbates the negative impacts that disproportionately landed on these groups. So what these surveys and studies tell us is that the gap in publishing should not be understood in isolation. This gap sits alongside a broader gender and BAME LGBTQI plus gaps in citations, which continue to be a key metric use for promotion as well as job hire in academia. Gaps in who we include in our syllabi, who we ask to be keynote speakers, who we mentor and network with, who we hire, who we fund, and who we promote. So yes, women and BAME and LGBTQI indeed do publish less. We're also learning the complex reasons as to why this is the case and the material implications. What we actually do to achieve meaningful change and address these gaps we know much less about. And it is this question and reflections that we hope to engage with now in this chat. To do so, I want to warmly welcome Professor Andrew Dorman and to thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to chat with us today. Professor Dorman is the commissioning editor of international affairs. He previously taught at the University of Birmingham where he completed his master's in doctoral degrees and the Royal Naval College in Greenwich. Alongside being based in the Department of Defense Studies at KCL and the UK Defense Academy, he is also a research associate at the University of Pretoria. Andrew Dorman's research focuses on the interaction of policy and strategy, utilizing the case studies of British defense and security policy and European security. He's held grants with the ESRC, British Academy, Liverpool Trust, Ministry of Defense and US Army War College. Today, though, we asked Professor Dorman to talk to us in the capacity of his role as commissioning editor for international affairs. The format of this chat is to have open and live question and answer session with Andrew. What I'd ask of everyone who's attending is that you pose your questions within the chat box or raise your hand, either or. And then we can have your question asked to Andrew. I'll read them out or you can raise your hand and ask them yourself and hopefully he'll be able to respond. Before we open up to questions and answers, though, I'd like to first give the floor to Andrew by asking you to explain how international affairs has come to realize this publishing problem in more detail and the specific interventions you as a journal are working to address them. So Andrew, I will hand the floor over to you now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your kind invitation and support. I took over the editorship of international affairs in 2015. For those who may not know, international affairs is one of the oldest journals we have in our profession. It covers the whole range of international relations and its audience aims to speak both to academics and policymakers. And it's great privilege to pick up that journal and there's been a whole series of editors before that and it's covered a whole series of disciplines. What was apparent when I picked up the journal and in the early part is that international affairs had very much focused on traditional transatlantic, European security as one of its strong benchmarks, one of strong areas of expertise. And that much of its authorship was based in the UK and in that transatlantic and Oceania Caucasus. And as an editorial team and I very much thank all those who are part of the team I'm in for that really hard work is that if international affairs wants to represent the whole of the international relations cover the whole of the discipline, we need to hear everybody's voice and we were aware that actually we were quite constrained in whose voices we're actually hearing. So, and we looked, we've very much opened the journal up to anyone can submit pieces and then we would do the usual peer review process of trying to get the best pieces into the journal covering a full range of subjects. What was apparent is that and has already been identified is women generally submit proposals and papers far less than men disproportionately less compared to how much they represented in the field. And I, we thought as a team, this is, this is we're not hearing the female voice amongst others and we talked about other editors and so forth about how we could change things. You know, we could spread the word say that we wanted more women in the journal. We wanted to hear more voices. We changed the editorial boards, the editorial boards of much greater female representation. In fact, they were in the majority, but it wasn't actually delivering the levels of submissions we would have hoped for. And we had a panel of which we held at the ISA convention in Toronto and given looking at gender and journals, which brought together a whole series of people who had looked at the subject, journal editors to say, you know, entitled, where are all the women? Why aren't we seeing women voices? And at that panel, Ruth Blakely had a department now at Sheffield and was then just stepping down as the editor of the review in Joshua Suddhison said, wouldn't it be interesting? Wouldn't it be great? What happens if a major journal committed itself to have it half its pieces by female academics? So as a team, we sat down and thought, we'll take on the Ruth Blakely challenge. So we thought 2020 is the centenary anniversary of Chattel House. It's not ours, but it's centre. We're doing for 2020, what's known as the 5050 challenge? We're looked to have an even submission publication in all aspects, whether it be articles, be it webinars, be it reviews, book reviews and so forth. What would happen if all our half our pieces by female academics all achieving the same level of requirements as everybody else? But what would it look like? So we set ourselves that challenge and that's what we're trying to press ahead with this year. And that's the background to our 5050 initiative. So we wanted to look at female representation. The other initiative we've got in the background, which we will push much more next year, is the Early Career Diversity Initiative, which is aiming to hear and support those who are coming from diverse backgrounds who are not in the same position to compete to get their pieces published. They don't have the same advantages, particularly for those on the global south. We are looking to look at their mentoring process where we see pieces coming in that we think have potential, but will not get through the review process. We will look to try and pair people up with some of our editorial team, our editorial members and see if we can help develop those pieces. Those are our initiatives. We don't think we're gonna make a major change in terms of the numbers of people we will change, but if we make a change, perhaps, and we hope with the 5050, other journals will pick this up and take it forward. And that's our background. And I'm looking forward to questions and answers. Thank you. Great. Start my video. Great. Thank you, Andrew, for that. Yeah, and it's certainly creating waves, important positive waves across, I think, IR and security studies. So thank you for that. Thank you for the challenge and fingers crossed other journals will follow suit. I guess it's such an important politics to even set the 5050. We do have a question, though, from Julia Wellen through Twitter. And she's just asking about, so setting that challenge, but also acknowledging the various other constraints for why women might not be submitting. Is there a way, what ways are you reaching out to particularly women, but otherwise other underrepresented communities to encourage them to submit to your journal? Is it a matter of PR in terms of international affairs or what is the concrete, I guess, measures you're taking to encourage more women to submit? That was a great question. And it's the challenge, I think, before most journal editors who want to accept that challenge. For us, we want to make the experience where the people are successful or unsuccessful in getting their peace into their health affairs as smooth and as positive as it can be. So we look to do very rapidly as quickly as possible, turn around times, we keep people engaged in terms of where the personal view process is. We are sympathetic. We try to address those issues. We are reaching out to different communities, such as as a way of saying, actually we want to hear your voice. Reputations and what the associations and historical legacies of institutions can be problematic and challenging. And people, we were fairly aware that with international affairs, that people in some respect thought of it as a bit of an old boys' network, an old boys' club. So it's taken us a number of years to try and reach out to people and break that down. But if you look, for example, in 2022 is our 100th anniversary and we've got an advert out for a special edition. And we've said, and people that are putting the proposals into that special edition, we've said actually we want to hear that submissions should include corporate levels of gender balance. They should incorporate, we want to see scholars who are based in the Global South. So there's a part of the criteria which people would expect to meet. So if you put a special edition into us, if we're out of a section, we want to hear other voices with some of the criteria. So we have rejected proposals for special editions and special sections because they have been all male or they've all been from one country. I remember I had a very good submission on European foreign policy from scholars that are all based in Europe. And it talked about how a European foreign policy would interact with the world. But there was not a single voice from outside of Europe. Just not, we can't go with this. This is, we end up just talking to ourselves. So you can put some criteria in and you do lots of encouragement. That's what we're doing. That's great. Thank you for that. I guess then the question too also, and I think this has been raised to you before entering different forums. So this is not going to be new and this isn't just for you. I think this is for all of us to consider is that to what degree do we need to focus on diversity of bodies? So who is actually authoring this versus or in addition to diversity of perspectives? Because we also know IR as a discipline can also be quite exclusionary in not only different perspectives that are taken seriously but different ways in which we write. Whether fiction, for example, poetry, different sort of vignettes that I know some journals have been exploring more than others. Is this something that international affairs is also concerned with or how are you grappling with that sort of aspect of the IR debate? Another great question. And like all editorial teams, everything's a compromise. I mean, as an editorial team, we're pulled in multiple directions between trying to get impact factor, getting the cutting edge pieces out there, getting pieces read, getting pieces that are going to be interesting, trying to break new dynamics. And for all of this and getting diversity as part of that is everything is a compromise. It's nothing's perfect. What we've sought to do is to broaden and welcome the whole span of international relations. For example, in this current year we had an ISA have got a new section on religion. Religion's always been part of international relations whether we've often not ignored it. So we had a collection of papers on religion and IR which is really interesting. We've also had a recent section on visuality which is sort of a growing representation that was absolutely fascinating collection of papers. So we're looking to develop at the moment articles in the traditional sense of what an article is or has been covering a whole range of different disciplines and different subjects. So we're open to that. We haven't yet particularly in terms of either ways of presenting material we've done lots on social media blogs and so forth webinars. But in terms of the hard copy we haven't yet moved towards different forms of article whether we will do in the future is to be determined. We haven't yet taken that step. There's only so many steps you can take at any one time. Yeah, absolutely. But those are really great insights. Nonetheless, anyway. So yeah, I think this is a tougher question but I guess it's also how you're reflecting yourself as a journal as I brought in the introduction. Journals are not isolated, right? This is these issues are always interconnected. So how are you as a journal thinking about the publishing gender gap as it relates to the other gaps within academic knowledge production, right? And again, you know, hinting to the gaps in who has secure permanent employment that has maybe more of a space to creatively think who is institutionally part of the in-crowd where they feel like they have more of put, you know, space for creativity. Are you thinking about that as a journal and in what ways are you thinking about that? We are, we're thinking about it. The things we can change, the things that we can actually do is in terms of who publishes for us and what they publish on. Those are things we have control of. We can't control what other journals publish on. We can't control how people are recruited. We cannot control the whole rest of the academic field in terms of all the other limitations. We can only do it from our sense perspective as a journal. So our goal is to broaden our remit in terms of, so we include everybody. Everyone has a chance to publish an international affairs. There's still got to be a certain level, a certain standard. With our early career initiatives, we are looking to help in some of those who form the disadvantaged backgrounds to give them a chance to put themselves into a level playing field. That's what we're doing through that initiative. In terms of subject matter, we're open. We're looked to see and we have two boards. We have an editorial board, which is based on UK-based scholars, which we've traditionally met twice a year. And we have an international board of equal, great academics, dropable across the globe. And we keep saying to them, what are we missing? One of the things that we're charging them with is whose voices are we not hearing? What subjects are we not covering? And because as an editorial board, given we cover the whole of international relations, unlike most, if you're a narrow specialist journal, your editorial team at Specialist and knows that field really well, given we cover the whole of the field, we don't know it all or where the new debates are. So we are very much dependent and rely on our editorial boards to support us in looking out for the new voices and new areas. And they regularly come in to say, you need to think about this, need to think about that. And we try and embrace it with them on that. Great, thank you. I want to open it up to our participants as well. If you have any questions, please raise your hands. I guess while I'm waiting for the hands raised, this is more of an interest of mine. And Andrew, I don't know if you can answer it. I mean, you just explained because you're such, you know, you cover the breadth and depth of IR security studies. It's hard to get subject matter experts on everything and anything, but have, what are you guys doing as a journal or do you see it as a problem of the broader citation gaps? Because we hear about women increasingly, you know, not getting excited, but also fame community not getting excited and who we cite as a matter of politics too, right? So, and I get it's tricky because it also relies on who your reviewers are and if they're going to pick up on that or not, but is there any sort of larger, you know, kind of journal response to this citation problem that you guys are looking at? You're right to identify, it's by now identified that, you know, men tend to cite men and the women's poison and minority groups are not cited at nearly the same extent. Like a lot of journals, I mean, this is a capacity issue. We don't go through as an editorial team or any other journal goes through all the references of a particular piece to find and look them up. We haven't got the capacity to do that. It's also difficult. And this is, there's some structural challenges here because of GDPR, for example. I, we do not know the things like ethnicity of us who submits to us. We can't measure this. One of the ways we've looked at gender is by how people define themselves when they talk in their biographies. That's how we've measured that because we can't actually go out and say to, understandably say, can you tell me, you know, your gender background, your ethnicity, your sexuality or when the challenge we've got for representation is if we want to see how well we're doing, we need metrics to measure how we're doing this against. But actually some of the data is very difficult to actually be allowed to record for understandable reasons. So how do we do that? Well, we rely on our reviewers to look, and we go, like a lot of journals go for special reviewers to look at it and say, how well are they doing? You know, it is fully represented in our guidelines. We talk it to both our authors, but also to our reviewers about checking those and we're aligned on the reviewers for that. Interestingly, the assumption would be that the more from the statistics would suggest that the more you shift the balance towards female scholars writing for you, theoretically your impact factor should drop. Also has gone up, figure's are going the other way. So we have a counterintuitive experience for ourselves that actually as we've broadened our diversity, our impact factor has actually gone up. And interestingly, you know, we've pushed to go away and encourage young voices and diverse voices. And it's not affecting our impact factor. It might do in the future. Theoretically, given the empirical evidence out there, it should have done. Our impact factor should have dropped as it is. We're now fourth out of 95. So it actually has been really positive for us. When we look at which pieces are viewed, which pieces are cited, there is still a gender gap here. Now, it's not that we promoted men's pieces more or that's fine, but there was a real challenge. We can't actually make our readership in an impartial way. That's one of the real challenges. We can do our bit to try and encourage them to do so, but how would they actually read it? Is it an interesting, is it a gap there? Yeah, I mean, this is the broader structures, broader biases that seem to be so ingrained, right? That are difficult to address. Yeah, so it's navigating, like you said, what the journal can do in this broader kind of capacity and resources. We have a question here from Amy. Amy asks in the chat box, do you have an action plan? So I guess she's probably looking at more concrete, right? An action plan, and if so, what does it entail? Are your goals generalized or specialized to different sectors? So I guess she's looking for more concrete kind of, how do you plan more concretely? I guess you've talked a bit about the concretes around meeting the 50-50 gender, but more concretes, I guess, around early career researchers or whatnot. What are the kind of concrete you mentioned? People from disadvantaged backgrounds to work with them, but what, I guess, are the concrete? How are you working with them? How are you gonna mentor them? Is that part of your plan and can you tell us about it? I hope I represented that right, Amy. If I didn't, please raise your hand and clarify, but I hope I represent that right. Okay, how do we, how have we done things? So I've mentioned that we, as we said, we went to the 50-50 initiative, which is about how much encouraging. And then we're gonna be very open in terms of how well we've performed. So you kindly refer to the great report that Le'er de Hand did for us as part of our team, which audited where we were between 2017 and 2019. And I think one of the ways we can, as a profession, change is if we are very open in it, how journalists perform. In your introduction, you kindly, you mentioned the work of Rhea Rubly and Co in that audit of International Security Section of ISA. And it's interesting that you audited five security journals and I think, you know, trying to hold some of them to account for their relative poor performance when it came to submissions. And it's one of the ways the profession can start to hold journalists to account, how well are you doing? Be honest about this. So what are we doing? Yes, we're doing lots of encouragement. We're trying to commit to a gender balance. We, with our early creative attitude initiative, we see it as a mentoring program where, and we, what we'll see is, and it can come through a number of ways. If we get a piece that's submitted and we've had it, where a piece has been submitted by an individual who's identified themselves with issues of unfairness and we think, actually, there is something in this piece. We think there is, they've got a really interesting idea, but it's not gonna get through with you. It's not, because of that advice, they're not gonna be able to get this through. So what we will do is, if we can, we will pair them up with one of our board and I've done it as editor. In the past, where we've paired them up, we said, okay, we're gonna take it out of the review process at this point. Tell them, start doing it. This is what you need to change. These are the things, in a sense. If you think for a lot of early career researchers in the leading universities, they can get their stuff here internally reviewed by their cohorts, by their supervisor, other people around them. They've got those ways of getting tested. They can do conferences. They could do conferences before COVID-19 or went into a whole new world and that was that. But you could get your, you could test your work before you sent it into a credible journal and just see how it went. There's people who can't do that. So one of the things we were aware of, struggling to do that. So we were sent to create that internal way of doing that by mentoring them, giving them feedback, and hopefully getting them to a place where they could submit to international affairs or actually they might submit to a different journal. And if, you know, we would judge success as if we can take one of the pieces from somebody, help them develop, get them to submit to international affairs or another journal and it gets through. Fantastic. But if you don't go to international affairs but gets into an urgent, that's the result as far as we're concerned. That's our contribution. Now, we're only gonna be able to do it to a limited capacity, but that's what we're trying to do. What other things are we trying to do? So we set ourselves a target with those two initiatives. We saw those work through things like special editions and special sections are making criteria and where we focus to try and get other voices heard. So when we moved from Wiley to Oxford University Press in 2017, our first edition in January, 2017 was on India. And it was, and we had academic struggles in India. India had been written about international affairs for quite some time. You know, we famously talk about that we have Gandhi as one of our previous authors. He is a previous author, you know, not many journals can say that, but it's now been neglected. So we've got a whole series of people to write and special edition on India. We've also reached out recently in a special edition on in January of 2020 on Indo-Pacific. And virtually all the scholars there who wrote on it were from the region. The only, I think to question the world actually based on the East Coast of the States as opposed to the West Coast of the States. But other than, there was not a single European writing on Indo-Pacific or from the region. So we reached out, we put some limits on that. And our competition for our special edition, you say, make sure that you actually have gender balance when you put the proposal together. Make sure you have people, a diverse collection of authors. So, you know, the metrics I've had submission that I had to remember, a special section proposal of five pieces from really big names. And they went, well, one of them is female. And we've got somebody who's based at heart, one of the Ivy Leagues, we represent the global south. Then we went, that's not balance. So we said, no, it's not good. So we rejected it. It would have been a good addition, but it would have been very male centric. So we can put some of those criteria and that's how we can make some changes. Great. I think that's answered it. No, I think, you know, it's the ways in which, like you said, the journal has to have some standards that are just non-negotiable, right? If we want to move on it, no matter how brilliant or fascinating, for example, that special issue might have been, right? So, yeah. We've got a question from Emily here that I think touches upon how we address an inheritance reputational issue, I guess too, with the journal, but more broadly speaking, she asks, how far does imposter syndrome play into all of this? When, especially when we're trying to reach out to disadvantaged communities. And she says, I think a very big challenge is getting people to make the jump into thinking their work is suitable for international affairs. Many people, particularly women, maybe, question mark, she asks, might never feel like their work is ready for publication like international affairs. So, the amazing outreach work that you're saying, particularly with early careers, I guess is, you know, is when they actually submit. How are you engaging with people before they submit to get them to encourage them that, you know, we will work with you, yes, we want you, and, you know, your work would be worthy here. Okay, that was a great question that we've done out which we always do and meet the editor session if we can. Any conference we go to, we're trying to set up a panel of that which because what we're very aware as an editorial team and a lot of other journals will say the same, is the mysteries of publishing in a journal. You know, what are the secrets of it? And so we always try and, if we can, do it and meet that. So a chance for anybody and everybody to ask questions about it as we often do a session. We recently did one online in conjunction with Bezos. We had out four different journal editors in, so to say, but we want to break the taboos that we want to break the ideas and mythologies about what are the pitfalls and easy things to avoid doing? What are the lessons to take? And then we, if you look at our blog, there's a whole series of pieces we've got on there to give guidelines on that, lessons about how to, what the do's and don'ts of not publishing online. So we've got material that people consult. We do that. It's interesting, Ruth Blakely, I referred to earlier as when she was, she found out that the review and tertiary studies had some really interesting statistics for the review and tertiary studies. She said, disproportionately men submitted, but if women did submit, they were more likely to be accepted. So we, you know, one of the challenges you've got is we make great generalizations, but everybody's story is different, but the generalization it is, and this is important, mixed into your point about unprocessing, women are probably more reticent about submitting a piece. In a sense, they won't take the chance if we put it in those crude terms, but when they do, they're more likely to be accepted. And this is probably generally across most journals. So the encouragement is take the chance because you're more likely to be accepted because actually it seems to be based on the statistics we have and evidence we've got is actually women's pieces are more likely to be more complete and more likely to be accepted. So therefore they should take the chance. I won't openly cause that probably means that their acceptance rates will slightly drop. We can reach out beforehand as well, we can reach out through experience. It's interesting, a lot of people, women who've submitted to us have been encouraged to do so because other women have submitted and have had pieces submitted to each other. So it's about their experience. So what we try to do about... Any place that comes in, you know, like a journal, we will try and turn around within 10 days and look at that death-rejection criteria. And I have to confess, we death-reject more than 70%. And it's not that a lot of that would not make a journal. It's to be reasonable that reduces it down to 30% of the pieces will go out for a view and we'll take less than 10% based on the statistics. We're wasting reviewers time and those are people who've submitted time if we put out more review. But we give feedback every time for every piece that's submitted, they will get feedback. Even if they're death-rejected, they will get feedback. We get suggestions about what they can do, how they might change it, alternative journals. Because some pieces that's submitted, you just get, actually, it's not for us. And often you'll see other editors go, a piece has been submitted to us, but it's not the right piece for us. But you should try this journal or that journal. It's much more applicable. And it's knowing about the brand. If people submit to us, they get, I will email them every two weeks to tell them how, where they are in the process until they get into production. So it's about coming. If you submit a piece, it's not lost in international affairs from the next six months. Before, at some point, a review pops out to tell you good or bad news there. No, it's about communication, given a positive experience. And actually our experience is that women tend to link much more to networks and therefore it's about how they relate to each other and how about the communication about their experiences. So what we want to do is to give them, even if that piece is rejected, is a positive experience that we will turn things around quickly. We'll be communicating with them where you explain things to them. Not that they need any more explanation to men, but it seems that people are much more helpful. I think that helps the question. That's such a great point too. I think it resonates from me returning to my thoughts of a PhD student and my first submission to journal. And I think the reason I submitted to the journal I did was I got advice that even if you're rejected, the reviews are generally positive and you'll get feedback to develop it. So I'm very pleased to hear that International Affairs is doing that. Cause I think that's important, not just for women, but anyone who, as Emily highlights, has that imposter syndrome, which I think is rampant with PhDs and then I think academics, I think we all still, there's moments where we all still have imposter syndrome, right? So... And the answer is you should aim high. People should aim high, aim at the top journals, get feedback, top it down to a slightly lower journal if it gets rejected. Most pieces will get up, find a place somewhere. But there was a, yeah, aim high. Why not? See what the response will be. I mean, I'm conscious of, I've got colleagues who've submitted pieces and they haven't heard it from them. Aim high, push it in and give it a chance. Because we need to hear your voice. We need, you know, the profession is it's the depth from which the profession and our understanding if we do not hear all these other voices. Yeah. So Sarah Perrette had to scoot out, but she wanted to thank you very much for your direct answers. And actually, Sarah does remind me, she did post this question as well, informally to me through WhatsApp, so I hope she doesn't mind me telling you. We're asking it to you, but, you know, we've talked a great deal about women, about early career. I wonder, you know, there's also another sticky point around language and how we disproportionately publish in English, right? And is international affairs doing anything or thinking about how to promote people who English is not their first language, how to promote, you know, in the broader mentoring schemes for them in publishing or are you looking at publishing at least abstracts in different languages? I don't know if you already do that, but something abroad, you know, bothered disbursement and accessibility of the research. It's a really good question. And yes, linguistically, you know, English dominates. It's the advantage to the English amongst us. That's actually our language is permeating, dominates. It has an unfailed advantage. In terms of language, we are aware as a journal that when people submit, if it's a second language and that, the English might not be up to stretch. Well, I have to say, we're one of the few journals we keep watching the whole production phase in-house. So our production team is in-house and we have our copy editors and our production editor is all in-house and we will help people with their English. In fact, our production editor is, she's fantastic. She's based in Finland and she corrects everybody's English whether you're a native speaker or not. Her English is better than anybody else's I've met. And I have a good friend in the policy institute who did red classics in Cambridge and she picked his English up. So, you know, we will help people if that language is not English, she's not English. And we're aware of that and review is a review of that. And one of the things that your editors will do, sometimes we'll go out to review and go, we think this is really good. We know the English isn't that good, but we can polish it. What do you think to the paper? What do you think to the article? And that's the line I'll put into reviewers. Look, don't worry about the English. We can, that can get sorted. We can help on that. The question is, is the paper, is the ideas, are the concepts, is the argument good enough? And that's what you ask reviewers to do. And they'll say, actually, yeah, but it needs a proper proofread. We can do with that. Are we doing more into other languages? We are thinking about it and looking at it. But, and it's a collective challenge for most journal editors, is one of resources. Because actually, you know, we are, international finance has an advantage, we are a well-resourced journal, but actually, aren't that many are able to then, do we put things into other languages? If we put abstracts into other languages, how advantageous is, we tell people, with a new piece in English in your language, but, you know, they do want to debate how much of an advantage is it to tell people that they'd like to find out if there's a piece in English or not the subject you're really interested in, but you can't read it unless you can read English. It's not particularly fair, but it's a constraint we're operating under. I'm not sure how far we can go beyond this at the moment, unless we use Google translate and see what we end up with. That's not ideal. So there is possibly, we might start to look at it in the future, but we've hesitated ourselves about using abstracts into other languages, simply because all it is doing is to tell people, we have no pieces in English. Is that sufficient, good enough with that? Is that just, since rubbing their noses in it? You know, I'm not sure. Yeah, you know, that's a good point. And it's, I mean, there's also the accessibility behind paywalls for a lot of these, you know, if we're trying to reach out to people who are based in New York, is that don't have libraries that may be subscribed to all these different journals with the paywalls too, right? You're right. I mean, the payroll is an economical model of how journals are subsenced or paid for, in the honest sense. And unless we change the economic model, you know, I know there's been lots of call for everything being open access, but there is a, there's a cost associated with producing and creating journals, even if they go online and purely online, with terms of the production side, doing all that. So there's going to be some financial mechanism. But, you know, we publish with Oxford University Press and I know they have a system where there is a process with which the institutions or organisations that have not got the resources can apply and they have a, I think a quota where they reach out so they can get free admission, which is great. Or, you know, we fully support that, links into the mission of both the journal and Chatterhouse as well. And one of the reasons we like being with them is, you know, they reach out and that was bad. Yeah. But we're aware there's a paywall. Yeah, yeah. Well, and I mean, we're just highlighting the, you know, the structural or the resource issues that are beyond the journal itself. As in which we can address. And I think, you know, with any broader issues around increasing access, you know, that these all connect to the different, how financing of higher education is done, and how, you know, who, you know, all of these sort of things too. So, yeah. I'm just looking to see there's, doesn't seem to be any grilling question. We're not grilling you enough, Andrew. There's not enough grilling questions in my mind. That's fine by me. Oh, gosh. Yeah, I'm sorry, you were going to say something. Sorry. Well, I would say, I mean, from international affairs, I can guarantee there's always an editor's choice. So there's always one piece in every edition that will be free and accessible. And there's periodically other pieces and there's all the open access bits which we can go with X and so forth. But if nothing else, there is always guaranteed to be one free piece in international affairs that everyone can get to. Okay. Great. This is good. I think I feel like I need to or want to publish with you guys now. You're just, this is a journal. Yeah. Cool. So I'm not sure if we have any other questions. No one seems to be raising their hands. I don't know if we're hungry because it's over lunch hour or what's going on here, but there's certainly, I feel like this isn't the end of our conversation. And I just want to take this time to thank you, but also the journal so much for taking these important issues seriously and doing concrete measurable interventions to actually address this gap, right? And I really do hope other journals pick this up. Other journals are watching the pioneering work you guys are doing, and I hope they pick them up. I just want to, I guess, leave the floor to you last, Andrew, if there's anything that you wanted to mention, anything else or any sort of, anything at all you want to mention about broader gender publishing? I think as already covered, there are so many issues and structural constraints. And the question we've had as a team is what bits can we change? And you can only look at your own little orbit and say, what bits can we change? And I think it's spread the word and encourage people to submit. That's what I would say. Encourage those whose voice is really not being heard to take a chance. If nothing else, one of the things we're going to start doing is having drop-in sessions or I say dropping, they're going to be virtual drop-in sessions. So people can come and chat with me and say, I've got an idea. Can I run this past you? Can I think about this? We used to do that a lot in the conferences when we traveled a lot more than we do now. So we'll be doing that. And if people have got other ideas, we're always welcome because it's, you know, we haven't got a monopoly of ideas on how to tackle these structural constraints. And if other people have got ideas far away, we're happy to engage in these conversations. Great. Thank you so much, Andrew. I guess I'm going to do the silent clap. Thank you so much for engaging with us in this discussion. And I'm sure it's going to continue on Twitter as well, too, and in these other broader spaces. But thanks for joining us. Thank you for the participants who have listened silently. Have, I guess, adhered to Zoom etiquette, apparently. And thank you so much for those of you who ask questions via Twitter or via the chat. So thank you all for coming. And this will be recorded, so this will be distributed more widely as well, too, for other people to know about the amazing work International Affairs is doing. So, yeah, great. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thanks. So I think that's been, yeah.