 All right, well, it's great to talk to you all here. And I just prepared some kind of general comments. So I'm an associate professor in psychology in the Center for the NeuroBase Cognition. And so I publish both in psychology, neuroscience, and in medicine. Maybe I will put this here. Can you guys hear me OK in the back? So I can speak both about my experiences in terms of being a plus one editor. I'm happy to answer questions people might have about the plus journals or about maybe I'll say a couple of things about the behind the scenes of the editorial process. Because I think that's maybe one of the advantages to some of these open access journals. But I think to frame the broader discussion, I think we're in an interesting space right now in time where we're seeing a sea change in terms of how we go about publishing our research. Lots of journals, there's all sorts of new open access journals that are coming out that are solely open access. What we're also seeing is lots of journals now that are offering an opportunity, so existing journals that we publish in, that are offering opportunities to pay a fee for articles and to have that then be immediately open access online. So I think we're going to see how this shakes out. I imagine if we did this again next year, we're going to have a very different conversation about the kind of evolving nature of how open access is going to inform our, it's sort of, I think, becoming increasingly a reality for how we're going to go about publishing our work. But as it currently stands, we have a number of really, I think, hundreds of open access journals that are out there now. One thing you do need to think about, I think, is which open access journals you're sending your work to. There's been a lot of kind of concern and some media that's come out lately about how there's sort of discredited journals and sort of obscure places in the world that are basically encouraging people to submit their science and pay outrageous fees to submit that science there, when in fact, these are not really well-recognized journals with rigorous peer review standards. So I think my recommendation, generally, to folks is if you're thinking about open access, talk to people in your field about what open access journals people are looking at. Two of the ones that we look at a lot are the PLOS journals and also the Frontiers journals. And I think those are sort of making their way into all sorts of sub-disciplines. In terms of PLOS one, this is a general science journal. We were just talking about it. It seemed to have a fairly high impact factor. And I've now published two papers there, and I serve on the editorial board there. And I think that there are some real advantages that I see, particularly with the PLOS journals. And more generally, I think this is true of these open access journals. And that's that there's a very quick peer review process in terms of the actual review of your manuscripts. And there's a very, very quick turnaround moving that paper from an accepted paper into kind of a copy edited final proof. And that's then appearing immediately online. So if you're, you know, you have students or you or yourself are really interested in getting this workout quickly, these online types of journals can be very effective for getting your workout. As far as behind the scenes go, the editorial process, at least at PLOS one, has been a really nice process. We still, there's kind of in this debate about publishing and kind of open access journals. You know, people sometimes label it as sort of pay to play type of journals. And it's sort of put in more of a kind of a stigmatized category. And I think the top open access journals, there's just an equivalent type of peer review process. The one advantage to open access journals is typically we require our reviewers to turn around manuscripts in 10 days or less. Which is in contrast, at least in psychology and classic social psychology journals, you can be waiting for four to six months for the reviews to come in. So there's kind of that much faster turnaround. But still the same types of peer review standards are held at PLOS one in terms of getting multiple and well-known peers to review the work. So overall, I think it's a really exciting time. We're seeing a real shift in the kind of landscape for how we publish our scientific research. And I think that there's some real advantages to these open access journals. I don't know if people had a chance to look going on to a place like PLOS one or Frontiers. They're all about sort of putting up metrics for kind of determining your impact. Everything from people kind of posting this on their Twitter feeds to Facebook posts. And so you can track not only the social media, but also the number of people who are downloading as well as sort of bookmarking and citing your work. Which I think is exciting and can be kind of a fun way to track the impact of your work. And I guess the last thing I'll say about open access, which is kind of the most fundamental piece of this. And that's that it provides an opportunity for the whole world to have access to this work immediately. We're sort of in a very privileged place being here in the United States at an elite institution. We sort of take for granted the fact that we can get most journal articles that we're interested in. When in fact the rest of the world doesn't have that type of luxury. And so you can see your work quickly get into the hands of people who are gonna be policy makers in other countries, to people who need this work and can translate it into their daily lives, health and well-being. So that open access I've really found makes a huge difference in terms of just your overall impact. So with that I'm sorry I can't stay longer. This is I think an important discussion. I know my colleague Mike Tarr is gonna talk about his own views on, oh you have to leave early too. But can I answer any questions? Maybe it might be most helpful for me to answer questions related to the PLOS journals. PLOS one is just one of a couple of journals that PLOS stands for Public Library of Science. And how many articles are you saying are coming out? 30,000 this year. 30,000 this year in PLOS one. So they're really trying to get a lot of, the criteria of PLOS one by the way change a little bit. It's not about the kind of perceived impact of the work of PLOS one, it's really about the quality of the work. So there's always some concern during editorial review processes, is this work that we're reviewing, is it good enough for science? Or is it good enough for nature neuroscience? Those criteria are downgraded at PLOS. The goal is really to get the work out there and to make sure that it's quality reporting and quality science as opposed to perceived impact. Okay, yeah. How many referees are you using for each article and are you doing double blind? Yeah, so I'm not doing double blind. Yeah, our field has never used double blind criteria. There's a couple journals in our field that use double blind but no, we use basically a single blind approach such that the author of the article isn't knowing who the reviewers are but the reviewers do know who the authors are. It's sort of hard in our field to kind of get away with a good true double blind. You can usually figure out who it is pretty quickly. So that was your first question. Oh, how many referees? It ranges at PLOS. The minimum is usually two plus an editor. I've been really impressed with the PLOS administrative staff. They always make sure on my papers to reach out to get a statistical consultant. So they've been really good about saying, hey, David, do you wanna also have a statistical consultant on this? We'll get someone for you. So on average with the papers that I review, I usually get two reviewers as a statistical person and then I like to read the article. So I really think of that as three and a half reviews. It ranges though. I've seen four and I've seen two at times. The deal was the reason behind avoiding the stain that science did recently. It was one of the ones that successfully turned the article away. Yeah, so are you gonna talk about the sting? Yeah, so let's save that for the next presenter because Mike Tarr, maybe it's time to turn it over and you can say a little bit about your impressions of the sting and the debate. I know you're critical. But anyway, thanks for having me and hopefully we'll have this again in the next year or two.