 Hello everyone. Today we have a special guest, Alireza Salahey-Neyat, who is a part of our working group. He is going to talk about how to review and deal with peer review in academic publishing. Today I will not be the one moderating the talk. It will be Irene and she is joining us from Georgia. So could you please turn your video on? Let's see if it works. Yes, here is Irene. Hi, Irene. Over to you. Hi. Hello. Hello, we're both here. Very welcome, Alireza. Very, very welcome, Irene. The reason I'm not moderating is because Irene is actually a leader of our ethical publishing and dissemination working group. So the floor is yours, Irene and Alireza. So, Alireza, thank you so much for being with us today. We are really looking for your presentation. If you could share your presentation and present yourself. Sorry, Alireza, are you hearing me? You are muted. Oh, can you hear me? Yes, perfect. So thank you so much for being with us today, Alireza. If you could present yourself quickly. And here in Georgia, we are all looking for for your presentation. Thank you. I'm a researcher at the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, and I'm also the head of Integrity Survey Integrity Group of ENI, and I have some experience in reviewing manuscripts. And I have some editorial experience working with different publishers and journals, including Sage as Bring Your Nature. And today we're going to talk about peer review and how to deal with peer review, which can benefit both potential reviewers and authors. So first, we will provide a brief history, the types of peer review and the recent developments, and then we will build upon and how a manuscript is reviewed, which can benefit both reviewers and authors, and each section of the manuscript should be evaluated. And the types of revision and examples of constructive feedback. And finally, how to become a reviewer and how to respond to reviewers' comments as an author. The goal of this presentation is to provide an outline of the important steps to follow when reviewing a manuscript with focus on the reviewers role in the peer review process. So first let's define what peer review is. Peer review and importance elements in the production of scholarly work is a formal system of examining scientific work prior to its publication. Referred literature defines the boundaries of scientific knowledge and serves as the mechanism for advancing the science. Does peer reviewers are essential partners with authors and journal editors to the effort to create and maintain the official record of the discipline. So here is a review of the history of peer review. William Hewill was an English polymath, scientist and young priest, philosopher and historian of science, who is regarded as the pioneer of peer review. As you can see, the peer review dates back to 1665 and over the years naturally it has been to different transition. Well, the modern form of peer review can be dated back to 1845 and different forms of peer review again. It was another important turning point was in 1991 where they use email and FTP servers for fully sharing unreviewed physics preprints. And plus one that's an open access journal also is an important turning point in peer review concerning the number of manuscripts that they publish. Because throughout history of peer review and academic publication, there have been different purposes for peer review at some points considering that the number of articles that could be published for quite limited how peer review was perceived was different. Launching plus one change that understanding because there are many mega open access journals that the mainly publish all and articles that can fit the scientific reader. A peer review is critical because it improves the quality of the published paper. It ensures previous work is acknowledged through the literature review and proper referencing and citations it determines the importance of the finding and their accuracy. It detects plagiarism and fraud, which is very important, and it plays a central role in academic career developments as how in many countries nowadays, even PhD students are required to publish in peer review journals before submitting in their dissertations and the same way that academic promotions from assistant professor to satiate professor also requires publications in peer review journals. Now the three main or let's say most common types of peer review is the traditional or single blinds in which the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know the names of reviewers. Double blinds indicates that the reviewers do not know the name of the authors and the authors do not know the name of the reviewers. Open peer review refers to the type in which authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers also know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of review reports are also published alongside in the article. Now, in addition to these three types, we have other types of peer review. We have the transparent type which refers to, which is very similar to the open review, and it refers to when manuscript is accepted for publication, the contents of the reviewers report is openly available. However, the name of the reviewers is not revealed at that point. Then we have interactive and collaborative type, which also is practiced by some journals, particularly in philosophy or life sciences, which usually refers to interaction between the reviewers or between the reviewers and authors to facilitate the review process. The process can be open or anonymous. Then we have post publication open peer review, which is operated by a journal that takes place after the manuscript is published. Then we have post publication comment thing, which means public comment thing that takes place on a published article. It can be anonymous. For example, pop peer or fully open, for instance, PubMed comments or facilitated by journal. Now, in this case, the difference is that the manuscript are usually have undergone the peer review, and after the publication is still the public can comment on them, which is different from post publication open peer review. Then we have preprint comment thing, and as you know that there are many preprinting repositories where authors can submit their work, and the public can comment on the articles that share in preprint archives or surveys. And again, commenting can be anonymous or open. They have also transferable type of peer review. Now, it can be anonymous, single blind, double blind or open, but it can be transferred allows the subject related journals to transfer the reviewed manuscripts. For instance, many large publishers can permit this that if you submit it to one of their journals, then they can accept the review for another. The example would be a spinal cord published by Nature and a spinal cord cases also published by Nature. And our example is triple blind when the entity and affiliation of authors is anonymized for handling editor well. Some journals are internal peer review, which is conducted by the editorial staff of the journal, for instance, very, very good journals like science, nature, nature medicine at this model, or even a smaller generals. And then we have Excel, which it would be the general focus of our discussion today, we're dealing editor in white experts in the field to peer review the manuscript and makes a decision based on the submitted review reports. I have to. Okay, I can see my screen. Well, here the criticism of the three main types, which is single blind, double blind and open. As you can see, the main advantage of single blind is that reviewers can criticize without any influence being exerted on them by the authors. And the disadvantage would be that it does not protect the authors from gender or any other sort of bias. And it is also a common peer review policy in many subject areas such as physical sciences. The double blind review. Of course, it's main advantage would be that the reviewers will not be influenced by who the authors are, for instance. And then reviewers know a paper is written by grad students, they may have certain bias towards it, or different sorts of bias depending on the authors, nationality and affiliation. The advantage would be that it's difficult in practical terms to fully anonymize authors and reviewers, although, still, it can be done, but because self citation, depending on a subject, and the presentation install this may happen. And it is also, it happens that sometimes the authors refer to work that the data for it is already available in certain repositories. It's also common in social sciences and new benefits. And we have the open type of review that is advantages to increase transparency and credibility. Of course, as an editor, I have experienced that even for journals with high impact factors that sometimes reviewers and not really provide good reviews, particularly when it's single blind or even double blind but then it's open. The name is revealed to the authors or we say that the content of the review would be published or example for frontiers journal where the names of reviewers will be published without publishing the content of the reviews. Generally, we have a different approach from reviewers in how rigor they would account in conducting the reviews, particularly when they favor revisions. Now, again, for rejection, they may stick to a couple of lines or a short paragraph or if it's a good paper and they want to recommend the acceptance still the same, but generally, they would do more work, particularly for revisions. So we can see the server results for the asked butters and reviewers that how they prefer different types of peer review for journals if they want to publish their own manuscript, or they are willing to to review for a journal that has this type of peer review. Every single blind and double blind are the most popular choices that are for authors submitting their own manuscript to a journal or for those researchers who want to review manuscripts for these type of journals. As you can see, open peer review is not very popular amongst researchers. Here are the reasons that why you should conduct peer review of course you can say that it's one social responsibility and academic duty. But in addition to that, it also helps you with your own research, reviewing many manuscripts over the time can also help you to write better articles yourself. This is also good for your carrier developments and awareness of new research studies before their publications and before your peer. There's also general interest in that area, which are amongst the grounds that in our surveys reviewers gave us. Now, according to surveys that we conducted. The reason for according to 93% of the participants that that playing a part as a member of the community was their chief reason for conducting reviews, and 83% also mentioned enjoy helping to improve the paper. 74% mentioned that cooperating orders reviewing work and to other reasons, as you can see that increase the chance of publication in the same journal or joining that journals editorial board. Different journals have different peer review process because they have different structures. Some journals have editor-in-chiefs and they have associate editors and they have editorial board is quite different. They have internal editorial members for peer review but generally speaking, this is the model that is practiced by many journals. So, after the author meets an article the journal the journal that you're a screens the paper for plagiarism, and for the content of the manuscript along with their aims and hope and then they send it to two reviewers or sometimes a tree but usually they send it to two reviewers. And then depending on your comments. The editor makes a decision for reduction or, you know, there was for more revision, they may request the third reviewer join. The paper could be accepted. So if you were invited to review any scripts. The third thing they should consider first is your availability. For instance, if you are too busy, you cannot conduct the review, it would be the best to reject it by accepting to review a manuscript while you know you cannot return it on time. You're not actually doing any favor to the editors or the authors because it would significantly delay the peer review process. Then it's your area of expertise. I'm not a medical doctor. I consider myself as a social scientist, but I reviewed for many medical journals. And the editors, they know that I do not have an MD or I tell them if it's the first time that they invites me to conduct a review for them. To tell them that I can merely comment on, for instance, certain areas on the research methodology or, you know, the results and the analysis, not the medical parts of it. Of course, I've published in medical sciences as well. It goes the same thing. Sometimes journal editors may invite people with expertise in certain area, for instance, a person to merely assess the statistics or data analysis of a manuscript regardless of their expertise in the topic itself. And then you should also disclose your potential competing interests, whether you've published with any of the authors in the past, if, of course, it's a case for open or single blind where you can see the names of the authors, whether you work with them in the same institution or previously worked with them or any personal relationships with any of the authors. Usually the journals review these things before inviting the reviewers nonetheless. Even if that happened, it's, you're required to disclose this potential conflicts of interest or competing interests with the editor and then they can make a decision, whether you still should review the manuscript or the competing interest prevents you from doing so. And again, it's a matter of confidentiality, which is very important. We want to say that how you can. Oh, sorry. How to review manuscript the first impression. The first question you should ask is that better the researchers original novel and important to the field and has the appropriate structure and language been used. Usually, this is the first step that the editors do but again, the reviewers should do the same. Then you review the title and the abstract. And you ask whether the title accurately reflect the research question in a study type. As a reviewer or editor, you should recommend, for instance, if it's a cases study, it should be reflected in the title. If it's a case of studying a certain country, again, they should do the same and avoid generalization. And about the abstract as you know, different generals have different guidelines and structures for the abstract some of them could be unstructured, which is very common in social sciences and humanities, or better it should be structured, which is the most common type in medical sciences. And whether it's really a summary or not. And does it include key findings, is it an appropriate links. Again, that depends on the journal guidelines and is anything presented in the abstract that wasn't described in the main paper. Then you review the introduction, that better it's effective, clear and well organized. Does it really introduce and put into perspective what follows and suggest changes in organization and point the authors to appropriate citations. And be very specific. Don't write the authors have done a poor job. You should be very specific about what went wrong and what you suggest and how they should improve it. The methodology, in my opinion, is the most important part of the research paper and actually that's where it can distinguish professional research from academic research. Can a colleague reproduce the experiment and get the same outcomes. Now, it's a very important question. So the authors are required to provide appropriate information, adequate information about their sampling, what they did, what was their theoretical framework conceptual framework and that are the sampling was appropriate and so on and so forth. And of course the references should be checked and the description of any new methodology is accurate if they claim to be so and could or should the authors have included supplementary materials. For instance, the data, they used and our researchers data. So you should check about the subject selection. Then it's about the validity, the ability to measure what you intended to measure internal validity and whether it has external validity particular even your conducting surveys. The reliability, as a reviewer is you should check the ability to measure consistency expect to see the same results if the if the research is conducted in a different setting, and in the kingdom of the reproductability. And then it's about reproducing the 50, which is the ability of the experiments to be duplicated and how validity and reproductability are checked. Samplings doesn't and you should see if it's clear how subjects or samples were selected and our eligibility inclusion exclusion criteria clearly stated. Now of course, even if they stated this sampling appropriately and adequately. Sometimes you need to advise the others that the sampling may not be appropriate. And they cannot claim certain conclusion based on sampling now deducted convenient sampling or group of for a population that they should have you for purpose for sampling, of course, you should tell them that the account research and conclusions due to their sampling. So is every subject or sample accounted for and can the sample set to be compared to other studies and can the sample set the generalized to the whole population. Again, you should check the sampling by us opportunity sampling for instance where only the most convenient subjects are available volunteer sampling that may share personality characters a strategy with sampling that refers to potential of selection by us in the defined sample groups and random sampling, for instance may result on balance demographic clusters. Again, even if a paper uses an appropriate sampling model that doesn't mean it essentially cannot be published and you should understand that if you use with sampling and sometimes methodology means that you should decide as a review or clearly recommended to the editors as reviewers that whether it's possible that these things be changed or not that of course everybody tries for control trials, particularly randomized sampling most appropriately but if for instance they conducted series of interviews or survey based on convenience sampling. And that it's the most it would be impractical or even impossible for the authors to change that they cannot because it requires them to conduct a new survey. If you believe that this cannot be done. In other words, you should recommend it to the editor that considering the fact that this is impractical dinner command that whether the paper still can be published with certain provisions or you believe that this is not published or in the Again, for results and discussion section you suggest improvements in the way that data is shown comment on the general logic and the justification of interpretation and conclusions, comment on the number of figures tables and schemes right This concisely and precisely which changes you recommend least separately suggest the changes in a style grammar and auto small changes. Note that you should not correct them yourself as a reviewer editor suggest additional experiments or analysis, if necessary, make clear the needs for changes or updates and ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all. But you should comment on the importance validity and generality of the conclusions request toning down of unjustified claims and generalization request removal of redundancies and summaries and again another thing that happens is that the same text that you can see in the abstract is repeated in in the introduction and sometimes the conclusion the same text, you should request to avoid redundancies and the abstract not the conclusion should summarize the study as for references tables and figures you should check the accuracy number and citations or appropriateness comments on the any footnotes. And you should also note that some journals do not have footnotes or end notes comment on figures their quality and readability. Also assess the completeness of legends headers and access labels check presentation consistency comment on need for color in figures. As you know, many journals are not online only so they have a printed copy they have an online copy. If figures are in color, they may amount for certain fees burden for the authors and you should comment whether it's necessary or not and if it's in gray scale. You should also comment better is readable or not. Now, when reviewing the manuscript, you shouldn't do these things if the language and grammar are such that the article is difficult or impossible to understand do not proceed with the review. If the manuscript can be understood but has many language and grammar issues do not try to fix this instead suggest to the editor that is need to have the manuscript edited, and do not spend time polishing grammar or spelling. However, do mention grammatical errors that affect proper understanding. After you review the manuscript. Now, you have to write it. First, remember you should be professional and courteous even if you want to reject the paper. If the authors made substantial errors in methodology, they made unacceptable claims still try to be professional and courteous. Read the whole paper and refer to guidelines before writing anything and use an appropriate structure for your reports first provide the summary of the strengths, weaknesses and overall contribution, then provide the major comments and finally minor comments. Remember that the objective is to advance knowledge. So here are examples of constructive feedback suggested areas for feedback or for instance acknowledge your understanding of the author's work in two or two sentence summary. Example of unhelpful comments would be that this article does not relate to the title or this article is confusing. So constructive comments would be like the article is a synthesized literature review of the use of text messaging to make patients with diabetes. The use of innovative technologies in managing these complex diseases is often unclear and varies, depending on the setting, and I commend the authors for attempting this project. If you have the opportunity to review this manuscript, then you will continue referring to their contribution the major comments you have on the methodology introduction, and then the minor comments feature for instance the changes in graphs the number of them, or even grammatical errors. Generally, it's suggested that the reviewers should first give the positive feedback. If you say nice job or nice article but need some editing, it would be appropriate to write something like this. This article is well written and the topic is of great significance given the recent controversies and debates on the topic in the literature. Readers and charts at great physical manuscript, please remember that the readership of the journal is international, so please clarify terminology so readers will understand your match. Again, in another survey that we asked editors that what makes good reviewers generally is that they provide a troll and comprehensive report. It's important that they submit reports on time. And they provide well found that comments for authors get constructive criticism. They demonstrate objectivity and provide a clear recommendation to the editor. So here's a question. I would like to ask participants. Who do you think is responsible for the ethics in publishing articles for instance do you believe that this is the ethics lies with the publisher, it's responsibility of the editorial team reviewers, authors, or funding bodies. Here in Georgia, how it is that they say all of them. I wonder what online participants have to say. Yes, in fact, they all are responsible for the ethics. For instance, many reviewers have the tendency or even editors have the tendency to believe certain ethical aspects of the paper, particularly when it comes to data. Then they have certain funding bodies for instance, if the manuscript reads that we acknowledge receiving funding from A and B and C, you believe that those funding bodies usually deal with the data. So the reviewers and editors are more forgiving, whether the data itself are duplicated, replicated, or manipulated. And you will focus more on the text itself that whether it's plagiarized, it's recycled or not. And we can see that the comments also suggest that everybody is responsible in this area. And again, I should also note that the editorial themes usually assess the manuscript using certain pleasures and detection software. But you should note that certain sort of misconduct, for instance, recycling cannot be detected by these tools. And that's why it is also the responsibility of reviewers to notice if there is any certain mismatch between citations, references, or hallucinations, which is a common thing by AIs if it's AI generated. And then they can recommend it to the editors that it requires further detection or is suspected. So it's an important question, how to detect research misconduct, whether you're a reviewer or editor. Now most publishers provide editors or editorial assistants with certain tools that they can check the manuscript against different pleasures and detection tools. But again, as I mentioned, it's about inconsistencies. For instance, you can't see whether there is inconsistency among citations and references, which would be a good tool. Whether you believe that there is certain incoherence in the text that may suggest certain parts could be copied from elsewhere. Or how an AI may write certain texts, for instance, it hallucinates in certain parts or they make inaccurate claims which doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective. Another part would be the data itself, of course. Now there are different types of plagiarism. As you know, but again, you should consider the types of plagiarism, their extent, originality of the copied material, the context, whether it's about referencing or attribution. Again, the intention should be considered utter seniority and language. Even before the rise of generative AI that many authors and students use nowadays since late 2022, which became quite popular. Even before that, many authors who wanted to publish in English, but they were not native English language speakers would usually ask someone else to help them. In such criteria, sometimes we witness that certain errors happened, but they were not intentional. Again, the seniority of the author is a different matter. That whether you should be more forgiving because if you believe that graduate students made some errors, for instance, this was a single paragraph, you have a different approach about how you should forgive them. Or better, it's done by a full professor. Now you can see the common forms of research misconduct in Iran. Again, but it can be applicable to other countries as well. In terms of citations, you can see that invalid sources is one example using secondary sources only is another. And in terms of texts, you can see that recycling is the most difficult one to detect the application is another form paraphrasing is very common repetitive research or Salami slicing is again another common type of misconduct particularly in medical sciences. Sometimes they conduct one survey, but they published the results in three articles, while it should be one. Again, in authorship, we can see that misleading attributions, and we have on ethical core contributions, including gift authorship ghost authorship. And in terms of data is very important to consider data falsifications data manipulation, including data fabrication, the application. They are very common article at once for a conference I received the manuscript that the authors conducted the survey, and I believe only 12 or 15 participants and they made a huge claim. I read the paper, and they were very unlucky because two weeks later from a different conference, I received the very same manuscript, and said that this time instead of 15 participants is was 150. So they definitely did not have a new population they didn't conduct a new survey. It was they just, you know, added a zero to that full of 10, and they resubmitted the manuscript so they were very unlucky that I was the review of their paper but these things happened. And as a reviewer or editor you should be very vigilant in detecting these things. So here's the case of study. And I would like that the participants provide your comments. It's a case of study for reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers. And here's the case. An editor sent out the paper to Twitter viewers, one of them who gave the paper a favorable review and close the research letter on the same topic with in his view a better study design. He told the editor that the author of the paper had encouraged him to submit it during anything they both attended. He added that he taught its inclusion would make a good complimentary prof papers. The editor send the research letter to the two other reviewers who had reviewed the first paper. The papers designed was criticized by all three reviewers and the paper was rejected. The reviewer, the peer review of the research letter is ongoing, but is so far favorable. Did the editor act correctly in having the research letter reviewed as well? Is it fair to reject the paper but accept the research letter? An author sends an article to the journal and the editor assigned three reviewers to review the manuscript. One of the reviewers submitted a research letter, a letter to the same journal to be published and he explained that the author encouraged him to do so. Now, the letter is also peer reviewed. The research article is also peer reviewed. Now, the research letter has favorable reviews, which means it can be published. But the research article that was originally submitted is going to be rejected because of the criticism of the research design. Oh, it is here. They are asking what the research letter contains. Can you be more specific about the research letter? The research letter usually letters build upon articles. For instance, you have an article discussing media and information literacy amongst a college student in a certain city. And then you wrote a research letter addressing perhaps the general topic of, for instance, media and information literacy, or maybe you want to talk about, for instance, media and information literacy as a curriculum, something like that. So they are actually compliment one another. But anyhow, regardless of the topic, this is what was discussed during the coping. The reviewer had used his position by discussing the paper with the author. He should have not because it's a violation of confidentiality when the reviewer, the third reviewer mentioned that, you know, he talked to the author and, you know, the author knew that he is going to submit this. He should also have declined to review the paper due to the close association with his own research. The referee might review a paper badly because it is not in their interest to see similar published before their own. So again, this is a conflict of interest that maybe that's the reason that the original article was rejected. The paper should have perhaps been sent to review reviewers, although editors often select people in the same areas to review. And if it's a small area of research, the choice of referees can be very limited. For instance, you're an editor for a journal, you receive a manuscript with a certain case of study that they're going that there was a study, regardless of discipline. There was a case of study in a certain country. If you know amongst your reviewers or editorial board members, somebody who belongs to that country, you usually include them as reviewers. It's, it's very, it's a common practice. And for that reason, sometimes you have a small pool of referees that you can refer to. No harm have been done as the authors of the letter openly admitted his conversation with the author author and had been encouraged to submit it. And the editor was therefore right to review the letter in the usual way. So here's another case of study, but I will let you know that better. Our webinar was for 60 minutes or 120 if we took which kindly clarified ads. Oh, okay, so we're going to finish it in 10 minutes. I made a mistake. I assume this was 90 minutes. So it's 60. So I'm going to skip the second case of study. And the third, maybe we can review the fourth case of study. This would be an interesting one about the authors displaying bullying behavior towards the handling editor. It's also the case 28. It's similar to 8.17 of cold. A handling editor rejected the paper without review after consulting with a senior editor, which it happens. That's rejection. The corresponding author sent an appeal about two weeks later where he requested that the paper be given a second chance and be sent for peer review. He said that in case of a new decision to reject that review, the editor should provide a detailed response to a number of questions and comments raising the appeal letter. I mentioned that in order to illustrate the importance of this study, he had done a social media poll asking whether the paper in question was more relevant to the journal's readership than authors paper whose link he provided in the poll and that had badly recently been published in the journal. The appeal was also read by another senior editor and it was agreed to reject the paper again without providing any detailed explanation as the behavior was considered borderline bullying. This happened even for a conference. Six weeks after the second rejection, the corresponding author contacted the journal expressing his disagreement, disappointment with the decision and threatened a freedom of information request to access the correspondence between the editors that led to the editorial decision. Moreover, he suggested he would be writing about his negative experience with the journal. The handling editor perceived this as aggressive and litigious behavior and shared the correspondence with the head of the research section of the journal, responded to the author and copied the senior author in the correspondence. The senior author responded by acknowledging the inappropriate behavior of the author and promising to take action internally. So here are the question. Did the journal handle the case appropriately? Could something else or something different have been done? And how can this type of situation be prevented? Projections sometimes when no review was done. It was definitely the senior editor. I lost your voice, Rita. So we are discussing the case here. There's a perspective that they act inappropriately, the journal with the author, case of discrimination, right? Yes. And proper way was to authoritatively keep this kind of view. Because no reviewer where I ignored that I understood. It's a channel. So another topic that was discussed here is that opening the case to the committee to make the process more transparent. Sorry, we really need to wrap up now. Sure. So the answer is that in terms of what the journal could do to future situation. Well, basically I'm going to wrap it up because we think it takes time. In fact, this rejection is a common thing and a reviewer is not essentially a needed when the editor decides to reject the journal because depending on different journals as you know, which have very different acceptance rates, for instance, if you compare plus one, which is a well known journal with about 50% acceptance rate to compare it to, let's say international security to less than 8%. So this rejection is a common thing. You may reject the editors may reject the paper based on its aim, scope, general methodology flaws, because particularly for smaller journals when you want to refer the manuscript to reviewers, they have a smaller way of doing so. And it was also suggested that perhaps the journal should have involved the article authors, in addition to the senior author. And again, with the benefit of the hindsight it's possible that after the author had done the social media poll and was asking for more detail it might have been possible to deescalate the situation. So the recommendation that it was although it was declined, it was inappropriate and even irrelevant to conduct the poll, but the editors could provide more reasons that why the decision to reject the paper. Okay, already we're absolutely out of time now I'm afraid we really are because we need to we need to wrap up. I'll finish it in just this is the conclusion how to handle the peer review for others is that always address substantial in terms of size and sub time in terms of your analysis and arguments to the points. Answer politely answer completely do not ignore anything even if you disagree with them and serve with evidence. It's very important don't ignore any comments even if again you disagree with them, or if you believe that it was already answered even if your comments would revising the manuscript would make it longer than the required guidelines have handle all minor edits spelling mistakes and so on and so forth, and always be optimistic because then usually you know you're provided that means the paper. So if anybody has any questions. I think we're really out of time what I'd like to do Ali Reza is just is just ask everybody to give you a big round of applause for for an excellent talk. Thank you very much. And my apologies I assume that it would be 90 minutes not 60 minutes. Sorry, but if anyone has any questions if you want to put them in the chat now. We can, we can deal with them offline. So, thank you very much indeed it's a really excellent talk very interesting I've got some questions for you as well but we'll do them offline. Yeah, thank you very much everyone and our next webinar will be in November. It will be with Thomas as well talking about with and turn it in. You have the details shared soon in the net website, the recording and the presentation from this webinar will be made available at on the net website and our YouTube channel. So, please keep up with us for our next webinar. Thank you everyone. Thanks everybody.