 view-to-view rejection. And what advice would you give them in terms of the next steps after a paper is rejected by a view-to-viewer? Okay, great. So if an author receives a decision of reject, and of course it stings, it's not a letter that anybody wants to receive, it's very disappointing. But what I would hope an author would do with that rejection letter is to look at it carefully, and to then revisit their own manuscript and evaluate it according to what the reviewer or maybe the editor has said, and then address those points so that and revise the manuscript. So then when they do, if they do want to take it to another journal to see if that journal will consider it, they'll have an improved manuscript. As I think the worst thing that can happen is if all this energy has gone into peer review of this paper, it's rejected, but then all of that work is ignored, and it just goes to the next journal in the same state it was to the other journal. That's sort of, it's it's not a great way to sort of take advantage of this process of peer review because it's the ultimate goals to have manuscripts and articles in the scientific literature that are that are excellent quality and hopefully those peer reviews, even if it resulted in a reject, hopefully that will help the author prove the paper.