 Great, hi everyone, I'm Shane Allsop. I'm the Community Engagement Assistant for Elife and it's my pleasure to welcome you to today's webinar and Introduction to Society for Early Career Researchers. So we're using both Otter AI and Zoom for our transcription services today. So to enable the transcription in Otter, simply click to the top left of your screen and choose Custom Live Streaming Service and then click View Stream on Custom Live Streaming Service. This will display the transcript on a separate window which you can exit out of at any point. Alternatively, you can enable the live subtitles in Zoom by clicking on the bottom center toolbar and clicking Show Subtitle and then to disable them again, you can click High Top Title at any point. But if you have any difficulties setting this up, just let us know in the chat box also in the bottom toolbar in Zoom. Brilliant, so today we have Godwin's Honru Chakwa who will be moderating the session. Godwin's is the previous Community and Outreach Manager for Society but now the head of Communities for Elife and we're joined today by two brilliant panelists, Pratia Vasthi, the Associate Professor of Cell Biology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Leslie Hansen, the Director of Biophysics CoLab. So each of our panelists will deliver a presentation of around 10 minutes after which we'll be followed by Q&A where we ask them your questions and we'll also circulate a very brief feedback form throughout the webinar just so that you can help us to improve on these events in the future. But before we begin, I'd like to start with a bit of housekeeping. So Elife's Code of Conduct is in full effect during this webinar. So we ask that you please be respectful, honest, inclusive, accommodating, appreciative and open to learning from everyone else. We ask that you don't attack, demean, disrupt, harass or threaten others or encourage such behavior. We reserve the right to ask anybody to leave and or deny access to a subsequent webinar. And most importantly, if you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome at any point during this meeting, we ask that you report it via email to Elife Safety Team at Proton Mail and all reports will be handled with discretion by our safety team. So we'll be recording today's webinar and we'll make it available on YouTube at a later date. And if you have any questions or run into any difficulties at any point, just use the chat function and send me a question or a message and I'll do my best to help. As I mentioned, we'll finish the webinar with a Q&A session. So you're invited to ask your questions throughout the course of the event. Just use the chat box in the bottom and Godwins will read your name and the question during the Q&A that follows the presentations. So without further ado, it's my pleasure to invite Godwins to introduce Saity and our panelists today. Yeah, thanks Shen for that. Hi everyone and welcome to this webinar to this afternoon. Sorry I'll be coughing a lot because I'm a little bit under the weather with COVID. So if I cough and disturb you, I'm really sorry about that. I'll try not to, I'll try to meet myself when I'm not doing anything. So we're talking about Saity today. I'll be very brief because the main thing we need to hear are from the two speakers who we have here today. Leslie will be speaking from the perspective of a group and then Sat and Pratchu will be speaking as a user. I would just briefly be introducing Saity to you. Normally we said Saity is the home of public preference. Saity is an application in enabling networks of scholars to efficiently discover, openly curate and evaluate relevant print prints. So that is the whole foundation of Saity is to help scholars to find what they're looking for in an efficient manner without having to go all over the place. It's an aggregator. Saity was built and is operated by a team in eLife since May 2020 and we work on it on a daily incremental process using feedback that comes from researchers. So our vision is a future where a diverse global community of scientists produce these results that are trusted and open for the benefit of all. That means that with this platform, with this tool, anyone and everyone in the scientific community can contribute and will provide their work for others to see and comment on. So the whole process is built around the published review caret which I mentioned earlier and normally I'll be using the term PRC for that for us to progress that this is where Saity comes in very handy. On Saity, you find a lot of open reviews which I'm mostly talking to us about and Saity particularly focuses on the review and the curate aspects of that. So what happens on Saity? There are groups, we use the term groups and sometimes people refer to them as editorial communities. Currently 20 groups on Saity and we have more in the pipelines to add. All of them do review, pre-print and provide those reviews openly. You can read them. The tool Saity application is just a platform that brings all of this together. So you don't have to go to different websites to find those reviews and read them. And as I said, let's be talking more about those activities. And one of the advantages of this is that on Saity, you can then find multiple evaluations and by different groups. They have not spoken to each other, but it happened that they have all reviewed one article and provided their different perspectives on it, which enriches the scientific work that goes on. Also, we have the other persona, which is users, who can create and curate their own list. And on that aspect, Prachi will be sharing her experience of using this with us over the last year, exactly, this month. And we've been building a lot into that assumption. That's plenty to you. The other thing we've added to Saity to enrich the experience of users is we have this page called Saity Feed. It's a live stream of what is going on on Saity, who is updating their list, who is providing the latest reviews and all that. You can go on Saity, you click on the Saity Feed menu and you can see that in front of you. This is how you can reach Saity. So now to welcome our speakers for the day. Let me introduce Prachi, he's an associate professor of biochemistry and cell biology. I think he joins the School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, as well as the co-founder and an in-comment chief scientific officer of Arcadia Science, a research and development company experimented with new ways to do and share science through the study of emerging research organisms. She also advocates for preprints and open science as the president of ESAP Bio and via the Board of Directors of A-Life where she is the chair. So it's good to see you again, Prachi. May I now invite Prachi to please share her experience. Thank you. Great, thanks so much, Godwins. And really happy to be with you today and tell everyone here who's in attendance a little bit about my experience working on Saity and actually using it for many of the workflows that we typically have for my lab and for my organization. And I wonder if I'm unable to actually post to anyone other than the host and the panelists, but I'm wondering if either Shane or Godwins could actually post to the attendees. Also the link to my, I placed it here for us, the link to my society reading list so that everyone else can be looking at the same thing. I don't have any slides, but I think everyone should be able to access it. So I think I wanted to start by giving you an idea of how some of the problems that we're facing as researchers and how Saity sort of tries to solve some of those issues. So I think all of us are very well aware that there is a movement towards, in the publishing landscape and I think a very positive direction as a result of preprints being available that author led publishing where we as researchers can post our work online and it can see the light of day when we are ready for it to do so. And after which any number of innovations of peer review and curation and all of those things can happen on top of that layer. So that really prevents any sort of bottleneck and gatekeeping from allowing our science to become available which and available to everyone so that everyone can read it. I think this is a huge positive step for all of science. And I think I greatly benefit myself from being on the cutting edge of science by reading people's earliest work in the form of preprints. Now, obviously that is a little bit different than the sort of pre-publication review system that we're used to at journals. So in this case, it's basically post-publication review where the science is posted first and then there's other types of review and curation that happen on top of that. And one of the challenges that that poses is that there's a huge now amount of literature that's sort of unbinned or unfiltered which is I think also still a positive thing, evaluation and expertise lives wherever it lives. And I think the only sensible thing to do rather than sort of cherry picking aspects of work that can be evaluated is to make it publicly available so that all the expertise can be brought to bear on top of that work. So now, I think this is again, a very positive feature but that generates a little bit of a challenge because we don't have full infrastructure and luckily that is being built around pre-prince with many of the people in participation today but you have this sort of fire hose of literature and there's still, how do we find all of that evaluation? How do we get that curation to happen? Figure out how to organize that literature in a way that it sort of doesn't exist in this new era. And so I think many of you are probably familiar as scientists in actually trying to find new things to read, sharing what you're interested in reading with your colleagues, with your lab members, your lab mates and often you have very sort of different ways of sharing that. Twitter is a way that I discover a lot of pre-prince and discover the majority of my reading materials either through bioarchive directly or through Twitter from amplification through other people that I follow. And then often in my workflow at least what I end up doing is that I find pre-prince in any number of different ways that happened to come across and then I end up sending it to a lot of people. So I either put it in my Slack group from my lab and send it to students in post-docs in the lab or I will within my other organizations share it with other scientists or tweet it out myself if I have something to say about it. And that means that I have this sort of hodgepodge of ways in which I'm sharing the things that I find are really interesting and why I find them interesting. And so, you know, inter-sciety is something that is solving a number of my problems all at once in which I'm able to sort of consolidate all of the things that I'm really interested in reading annotate those things directly as a, for the reasons why I find those pieces of work interesting, important questions I have about it things that I'd like to note about those pieces of work and they can all live in one place and in one feed my students or anybody else who's interested can subscribe to that feed. And then that gets continually updated as I add more annotations. So if I think Shane has shared that link to my reading list and what you'll see on there I'm pulling it up now, what you'll see on there is a list of different preprints and below it you'll see my annotations for why I find them exciting. A lot of them are my excited exclamations for why I found each of these pieces of work of particular interest. And so it really is nice to be able to actually see them all in one place. I think my students have given a lot of feedback that they actually appreciate being able to go back and look at all of them in one list instead of scattered all throughout 15 different Slack channels and emails and all the other places that these things typically live. And then the, so I think this is one way in which we might start, might think about having sort of curation of the literature where we have this big bin of preprints that's just one, it's all in one bucket and then thinking about how we might be interested for different parties that might be interested in curating and you can see on society that there's a number of different groups that do evaluation of preprints and all of it lives on society. This is sort of the other use case. I think COVID has given us a really good example where of course we have vaccines in months and not in years or decades because people shared all their work in the form of preprints, but then of course we all can't be virologists and immunologists. So it's really important to us as readers of the literature to sort of understand how experts on this field think about the preprints that are being put out there. And so, and as Godwin's noted, typically that evaluation lives in a number of different places. Even on BioArchive, you can find comments on like 15 different places on the page, whether it's by comments or living in the drawer that sits on the right and the trip reviews or other types of community reviews. There's a number of different places all of these things live even on BioArchive, but then of course there are an amazing proliferation of groups that are doing this evaluation. And I think that is an extremely positive thing. People innovating in different ways of peer review on top of preprints and that all with different models and different types of review, all some of them are more modular, some of them are more comprehensive, the expertise is wide ranging. And it is of course as a reader really helpful to not have to go to 18 different websites. I think that the distributed nature of this evaluation is extremely positive. The heterogeneity is extremely a good thing in my opinion that it's good to have a lot of different evaluators that think about this in different way that participate, that have different areas of expertise. All of these things are extremely good. So the goal is not to consolidate the review necessarily, but to actually allow readers to find it all in one place no matter how heterogeneous it is or what form it takes. And so that's the one thing I really appreciate about CIDES that it's actually allowing that distribution of experiments to take place, that the distributed nature of experiments to take place so we can find better, more effective ways of doing evaluation and then bring it all in together in a way that's actually useful to the reader. So I think this is a huge, huge benefit of CIDES and allows us to sort of find the literature sort of evaluation first, rather for things if you wanna say which are the pieces of work that have substantive comments, you can see that on CIDES. So I think all of these things are extremely good developments. And so I really encourage everyone to start thinking about if these are problems that you yourself have to solve sharing, collecting, for example, even the things that you're interested in reading as Godwin's mentioned, you can keep your own private lists as well on CIDES, or you can have a public one like mine where other people can follow your list. And then of course, if you're really interested in seeing what other people thought of work that might be perhaps a little bit outside your field, something you can't yourself evaluate, but are interested in seeing what evaluation of that work is on top of preprints you can find those things on CIDES as well. So yeah, so I think in my experience in doing this curation, actually trying to have all of the work that I'm interested in reading all in one place, I've actually gone back several times just to, as often I think you guys will all experience the coming across work and you feel it sounds familiar you're not sure if you've read it before and actually having a place where you can go back and see your own notes on something that you've read is also really a nice benefit and having it live in one place. So I think a lot of people have reference managers, but it's kind of nice to have this be in a way that other people can follow and you can probably imagine that there might be maybe it's your advisor you're interested in following what they're reading or somebody else in your field or somebody aside your field who is an expert in a topic that you're really interested in if you're trying to move into a new area of science I think that's another sort of use case where you're the science lands us wherever it lands in whatever field we land in and sometimes we have to get up to speed on a new area and are trying to understand what's on the leading edge and seeing what other people are reading is always I think sometimes of interest. And so I think I'll leave my comments there I'm happy to answer any other questions when we get to the Q&A period. And now I'll invite Leslie who's the director of physics, collab and biophysics collab is one of the group on society after completing a BSc in physiology sciences Leslie studied auditory neuroscience for her PhD at the University of Bristol. She moved to University College London to work on the structure and function of ultimate receptors in the brain. In 1999 Leslie became an editor for the journal side journal Nature where she was responsible for selecting molecular neurobiology research for publication and overseeing the biology components of nature's review program. She then launched and led nature communications through its inaugural five years for funding editorial and publishing consultancy and since scientific. Most recently she has been working with the biophysics community to launch biophysics collab and experiment to innovate in the publishing space using publish review curate which we usually refer to as BRC. So welcome to. Thank you very much Godwins for that invitation and thank you for the invitation to talk today about biophysics collab. It's a real pleasure to be here and I look forward to all your questions at the end. So biophysics collab is experimenting with the published review curate model of publishing as Godwins has already explained. This is something that was proposed by Stern and O'Shea back in 2019. So not that long ago actually and it's called published review curate because the process starts with publication as a pre-print and that's already happening on many different pre-print servers now and it's becoming more and more popular. It's growing in popularity exponentially. So this was already in place when we started to think about our experiments. The review pass is something that pre-prints essentially allow us to do really very easily and openly in the public domain and then curation for those who aren't so familiar with the term is something that involves essentially in this context at least, I describe it as communicating the interest or relevance of particular pre-prints to particular communities. So that's how I usually describe published review curate at least the way we're looking at this and we decided to start an experiment in PRC as has already been discussed on, there are many others innovating in this space as well and in very different ways. And I think that's great because it's only by testing the different ways in which this could work that we will find a really efficient way of potentially driving forwards PRC in a much greater context. So what I'm gonna be talking about is essentially what we're doing at Biophysics Colab and that could be very different from what others are doing. So why are we doing this? We're doing this because we really believe that PRC can deliver better peer review, faster communication of research and also equity and inclusivity in the way that knowledge is exchanged. So we think that better peer review can result from this because it gives us an opportunity for peer review to be open and constructive and not adversarial. We believe it can be much higher quality because in our case at least, it's led very much by the community for the community and it's open and transparent. There are no black boxes, no underlying questions about what might have been going on. It's all been done out in the open for everybody to see. We believe it can allow us to achieve much faster communication of work because preprints already allow this. So that faster communication can be in the form of preprints, but we can also achieve faster communication of peer reviewed work as well. And this is what I'm going to be explaining to you. This is essentially what we're doing. And we believe that we can achieve better equity and inclusivity and knowledge exchange, both for readers because papers and the reviews of these papers and how they're curated is freely and publicly available, but also for authors because it gives us an opportunity to allow peer review and curation to be accessible to all and to be independent of kind of binary decisions for journals that are often judged by very flawed metrics. And that's not something that the journals have asked for but that is unfortunately how a lot of them are judged. So, CITI is allowing us to do several different things actually in this PRC space. So first of all, it's allowing us to identify published preprints. So we identify published preprints in many ways. Sometimes authors tell us about them. Sometimes a reader may tell us about an interesting preprint. Maybe something that we've noticed on bioarchive or research square or other preprint servers. But interestingly, I've been working with CITI just the last couple of weeks on a new recommendation tool which is a fantastic way of surfacing preprints that might be interesting to our community. And this recommendation tool, if you feed it with information about the kind of articles that we're interested in, it'll relay back to us suggestions for other preprints that we might want to read. So that's something that's not available yet for the public on CITI but we're really excited about it. It really works incredibly well. So CITI allows us to identify published preprints. CITI is also allowing us to communicate preprints that we think could be a potential interest to our community in this case, the biophysics community. And we're doing this by means of a reading list. And so this is already active on CITI. And I believe Shane may have hopefully shared the link to our CITI page. If he hasn't gone already, I'm sure he will soon. But this is a link to our group page on CITI where we have a list of articles that we've endorsed, articles that we've evaluated, but in our About page we also have a link to articles that are being read by biophysics co-lab, which is essentially a reading list. And so this is how we communicate preprints that we think are gonna be of interest to our community and then CITI also allows us to publicly display the products of peer review alongside the articles that these products relate to. So we display reports on the preprints that we have peer reviewed. These reports will contain the identities of the reviewers if they happen to have signed the report. Our reports are, in our case, we've chosen to communicate to the authors and also publicly display consolidated reports. So these are reports that are produced after the individual reviewers have produced their individual reports and then a discussion takes place and a consolidation occurs. And we actually said just one report to the author with essentially just one set of recommendations. These reports also explain revisions that we feel will be essential to be addressed in order for us to be able to endorse the work. And also a series of optional suggestions, authors may consider them, they may consider them now, they may consider them in the future, but it's entirely up to them. But just thoughts that our reviewers raise that we think are helpful to pass on to authors. And we can also, alongside the articles that we peer reviewed, we can also display the authors' responses. So all these items, if you like, all the products of our peer review are available by clicking on our list of evaluated articles, clicking on the articles themselves, and then underneath the abstract, you can see article activity feed, and this is where we can see, where you can see our consolidated reports, the authors' response, if there is one at this time, and also our evaluation statement. So this is the fourth thing that Saati allows us to do, is curate the preprints that we feel have passed our peer review process. So if we feel that the results support the conclusions, which essentially means that if we feel that all the revisions that we consider to be essential for our endorsement have been addressed satisfactorily, then we will endorse that preprint. And we will do that by posting an endorsement statement, which describes the interesting findings. It describes them in a nutshell, in a sentence or two. It also tries to explain why we feel these findings are interesting and important. And crucially also who these findings will be of interest to, the people that they will be of interest to, or perhaps the communities that they will be of interest to, or maybe if it's a really landmark paper, that these findings will be of interest to society as a whole. So, and sorry, I should have mentioned that all the articles that we've endorsed are actually listed separately in a separate list and just the ease of use, ease of access. So this is a second list that we have on our page, which is endorsed articles. And essentially you click on that, you can see a list of all the articles that we've endorsed and then by clicking on any one of those articles, our endorsement statement is, would appear at the top of the article activity feed with the author's response underneath and the consolidated peer review reports underneath that. So it's essentially, it's the order in which these appear is essentially the order in which they happen with the most recent at the top. So it's a really efficient way of displaying our activity, the activity of our group on society. So I've sort of begun to talk about this a little bit already but just to reiterate and highlight that there are many advantages that society brings to our group as we're innovating in the PRC space. So it allows us to post content, it allows us to post the fruits of our labor and it's really easy for us to do that. So once any of these items, you know, either the report or the author's response or our endorsement statement, once we posted that content in hypothesis, society finds us, we, society finds it, sorry, we don't need to do anything else, society will surface that information, it will link it to the preprint and question and display it as I've just described on our lists which are on our group page. Society has allowed us to begin experimenting with PRC much, much quicker than we would have done otherwise. You know, if society wasn't around, we would have needed to develop our own platform to showcase our activity. So, and that's, you know, that's no mean feat, that's going to be a considerable amount of development. So it was, we were lucky, it was already in place and, you know, we've been hugely lucky to work with society to be able to showcase what we've been doing. It also allows us as practically so elegantly explained to collect the products of our activity in one place. So for us, for example, anybody who's interested in biophysics can, you know, can come to our page and very quickly see at least some of the articles that we think are interesting and find out why we think they're interesting and also find out which ones we're endorsing now. Now, this is not comprehensive, it's by no means comprehensive at the moment. This is very small scale experiments and it's essentially limited by the number of people that are involved in the group. But it is something that we're, you know, we're trying to expand, you know, we're always looking for to recruit new scientists to help us in our endeavor. But essentially, you know, biophysicists in the future, hopefully we'll be able to come to this page and find, you know, find work that they may be interested in or collected in one place. And I think also what's really nice is that society is helping to bring pre-print review into the mainstream as well and highlighting the benefits of PRC and pre-print review in particular to the wider community. So, yeah, I hope I've explained what we're doing and how society is helping us. And I look forward to your questions. Thank you so much for that, Leslie. Yeah, so thanks a lot. And with all that Leslie and Pratchett said, I just want to actually make it known to everyone that no fee is being collected, it's all free. So if you want to host your lease, if you want to host your editorial community, society is wholly, wholly free, like completely. There's nothing, you know, you don't have to pay anything to do that. I'm glad that Leslie mentioned the hypothesis where you can post some of your reviews and that also is free. So, you know, nothing stops you as some, especially as an early career researcher to expose what you do, to make it, you know, put it out there for others to enjoy and benefit from. We are now in a session where comments are welcome and questions are welcome. We want to know what you think or what questions you have, but I'm going to just start with a question that someone sent by email. I think it's Annalise Taylor. Actually, Annalise, you're here, I think. It may be possible, Shane, to allow Annalise Taylor to ask her question. Maybe she can elaborate more if she's willing. Otherwise, I may read it out. Hi, yeah. My question was about how the reviews are actually sort of curated, like how you identify people to do the reviews of the preprints. And I saw at the beginning that it looks like you're aggregating different preprint servers or preprint review services as well, but just a little bit more about that process. Okay. So, yeah. Thanks for mentioning the preprint servers, because I didn't talk about that. Because we started building this from scratch and building it along the line of allowing researchers to use it, because we are building it based on this feedback. We have been experimenting with just a few things. This is why there are fewer groups, because we want to make sure that we get it right. And in the same vein for preprint servers, we currently are formally linked to two preprint servers, and those are bi-archive and meta-archive. So those are the two main things. If you go on site and search for article, the results you get are indexed to these two preprint servers. Beyond that as well, we can review activities on Research Square. Some of the content that Biophysics Collab has on there is on Research Square, I think. And then we've been working to display things linked to CLO preprints. That is ongoing now. So we are able to do that, but currently in a formal position, we are just indexing for such purposes, we are only indexing to preprint servers. I hope that answered your question. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Someone has their hand up. Marufu? Hello. Thank you. Hi. Look, can you hear me please? Yes, we can hear you. I want to say thank you so much for this wonderful opportunity and privilege and innovative idea you are coming up with from. But my concern is how can we researcher and review also benefit and get ourselves registered on the platform? Because I've heard you said it is free and of what relevance will it not be to us researcher? I would like to have a better understanding of it. Is this something we can also add in our profile like our CVs and the rest of them? I can answer that question. Go for it. Thank you. Great. Thank you for the question. One of the things that, I think preprints have this obvious benefit that the authors are able to share their work. One of the things that it lacks is peer review on the outset. In order to have that peer review layer, we need a lot of participants. One of the great benefits is that anyone can review and comment on a preprint. It is a public product and anyone can review and comment on a preprint. One of the community based groups that exists on society is pre-review. Where you could actually review any preprint that you want. What happens on that platform is that you can review and get a digital object identifier, a DOI, and that means that now your review itself is a scholarly product that has a link that you could add to your CV, for example. That will get indexed on society as well so that it can be visible for anybody who wants to see that review and it will get posted back on to bioarchive itself as well. I strongly encourage all early career researchers to participate in the review system, just waiting to be asked. That is the current limitation of the system in which you typically have very few numbers of people that are able to participate. It is putting a great strain on the system. The scientific literature is expanding exponentially. Of course, the current version of review is crushing under the weight of that. We already know how long it takes in order to get review of papers. It takes a very long time. It requires very few people to review a huge amount of the literature. I think an obvious solution to that is to open up review to the expertise wherever it is, including all of you early career researchers who are experts in your science. You are the ones doing the research. You are the ones who are working for the research. If you want to get to a new ecosystem in which we are all contributing to this review in a way that makes it more sustainable in the future and especially in this new future where that is built upon pre-prints and post-publication review, we can all participate in this. That is a good mechanism. You can get a digital object identifier for your review. It is a scholarly product that you can put on your CV. That doesn't require any other infrastructure. These are things that already exist where you can have a very clear link to your review contribution. Thank you very much. I would like to ask Shane to share a feedback form. I think there are three questions on it. We would like to know what you think about this and make any suggestions. I will ask David Ashbrook who has posted a question if he is happy to make his comment by himself. Otherwise I can just read it out. David, how do you do that? How do you do that? I have managed to get logged in. I have saved a list. Is it possible to get many different lists or is it one per account? I saw you had a nice annotation of the papers on there. How do you do that? How do you do that? How do you do that? That is an experimentation stage you are seeing there. We are soon going to activate it for other users. David, just as you are very interested, I will be in touch with you. Maybe I can get you to do it as an experimenting phase as well. If you like that. That would be great. There are other aspects of whether you can have more than one list. At the moment you can only have one. It is a feedback we have had from other researchers as well. It is in the pipeline somewhere. We are thinking about it. No work has been started on that yet. Shane has just shared a Google website. Can I ask something? Prachi did mention pre-review. I will ask her to chip in. Daniela's pre-review is also a group on site. Can you take two minutes to explain that to us? I am here. I always learn more. I am supposed to know a lot about sites. I always learn more by participating. Thanks for mentioning pre-review. Basically, we are always trying to improve the platform. We are in the process of making new exciting changes. We have a lot of new services coming up every day. It is the primary audience for early career researchers. In designing how people can contribute, we want to prioritize openness. We believe openness is the way forward. We believe there should be a choice. Especially for people who have been able to do so anonymously. That is one feature about pre-review. You are logging and signing up. You will have a chance to publish everything with your public name. It will be linked to your orchid ID. You also have a chance to publish with a pseudo name. It is assigned to you at the time of sign-up. What that means is that you are not accountable for what you write. Pre-review is a code of conduct. We ask everybody to read and abide when you sign up. There are ways for other community members as well as for us to flag reviews that are published. There are different ranges. Things that are not cool. We do not tolerate attacks or comments that are not with a purpose of providing feedback that is done as constructive and clear as it could be. That is one feature that is helpful especially for early career researchers. The last thing you can do is provide a rapid pre-review. You can capture the gist of the pre-review. It is under the lens right now. We are looking at improving that. You have to say yes or no. Science is not as white or black. It provides better ways of providing gray areas. We are looking at improving that. We are looking at improving that. We are looking at improving that. Thank you for giving me the space to talk about pre-review. Today we published the first pre-review that was authored by a lot of early career ambassadors that participated in the pre-review. Thank you very much. Thank you for the space and the opportunity. I am dealing with a big concern about ethics. Part of the circumstances that new researchers more learn are related to ethics. It is a topic that nobody wants to have knowledge to formulate or to discuss. It is important in order to prepare a strong researcher career. I would like to know your thoughts about the ethical problems that new researchers face. How will the community deal with ethical problems in the near future? Thank you very much. Leslie, would you like to take that question? If I may just get a little clarification. Are you asking about ethics in publication in a more general sense? How research is conducted? That would be helpful. It could be up to you, but I think it is related. If we are not well trained or sensitized about the ethical concerns and problems and criteria, I would like to introduce publications with non-ethical basis. It is up to you. I want to put this hot topic on the table. Thank you very much. I agree. It is incredibly important, and I really wouldn't be time to go into that in depth in the five minutes or so that we have left in this webinar. Just to maybe expand on a couple of ideas around your questions. Research ethics and publication ethics are things that actually journals are a great source of information about research ethics and publication ethics. Visiting their websites is a great way of finding out information about that. In terms of society and society, and PRC, and pre-print review, one of the real advantages is really for publication ethics. A big advantage is that pre-print review is conducted out in the open. There is nothing going on behind the scenes that we don't necessarily know about. The idea is a very transparent environment. Anybody can comment on a pre-print and state their opinion. It's something that we're very aware of as well as a group on society. We haven't yet, but we are in the process of formulating our own policies, expectations that we have of reviewers, expectations that we have of authors, and we're going to be posting those on the website. It's very relevant because what we try and do with all our peer reviews is involve as many different people as we can in the peer review process. We're involving senior researchers, researchers from around the globe, researchers with different backgrounds. It's really important that everybody has a voice in our process of consolidating the reports. It's something that we think about all the time. Probably that's the most I will have time to expand upon in this webinar. Thanks, Leslie. If you want to send me an e-mail, I can ask Leslie to respond more broadly or at length to your question that I would help. We have four minutes. Do you have any thoughts? I was going to say Leslie's point about the transparency of public review. I think this is a huge benefit for all parties. Rather than discussion that goes on behind closed doors to make sure that authors have recourse to discuss that publicly in return instead of just be at the mercy of behind-the-scenes discussion. That is a huge benefit that everybody can see. I think one big concern about public review and having everyone participate is that you don't have to discuss the conflict of interest. This is built on platforms such as bioarchive which requires authors to disclose their competing interests. When you come to reviewers, since anybody can comment whether there is conflict of interest of a reviewer on to the work if there is not checks being done upfront. There can be recourse and public discussion in order to have these conversations out in the open. Even if there is some behind-the-scenes connection between people in whatever way that might be it is still available for other people to comment on and refute and authors to have recourse. These are important questions that I think we need to keep in mind. Again, we are achieving something that the secret review system is, yes, there are checks and things happening by journals but by virtue of things not being transparent we cannot ever know what exactly is transpiring and this is the ultimate benefit. Thank you, Prachi. That brings us nicely to the end of this webinar. Thank you so much, Prachi and Leslie for your time being here today to share your experiences with us. If you are interested in future ECR webinars, we as E-Life will invite you to explore the past and the targets ECR Wednesday webinar series which are presented by E-Life which discuss a wide range of topics that are of interest to early career researchers. Shane will drop a link to the collection in the chat. Thank you, Shane. We will announce next edition soon and look forward to seeing you there but may I also ask and add that if you want to set up your group on society or on Pre-Review, just get in touch as well and provide technical advice as well to help you if you are just starting off and you don't know how it all works and we can support you to go through that and make sure that you can get it right. So far now we are doing self-selecting for groups to appear on site. If you call us there are some pills but it's not very long pills. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for completing the feedback from that we sent out. Until next time, thank you. See you soon. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Bye.