 Thank you, Scott, for this very nice introduction. We are going to have now a roundtable discussion called The Future of Scientific Publishing, When to Go to New Venice, When to Stick to Traditional Journals, and this is going to be co-chaired by myself, Professor Jean Maury and Professor Bernard Bowney, so I'd like to invite the two of them to come here to the podium. And the way we organize this is that we put a few slides, a few from each one of us, and so each one of us will talk about his slides for a few minutes, but this should be very brief, just to give you like a very, very brief introduction slash overview. And then from there we'll have an open discussion. And the basic kind of fundamental question is, when do you stick to traditional journals that are of course online, but were created in print and still existing print, and have like a page limitation and become increasingly selective, and when do you go to this new type of internet-based open access journals? So Professor Bowney, he has made a huge contribution to that because he was the person responsible for our field, kind of a component of PLOS-1, which was I think the most successful open publication journal from the Public Library of Science. So the Public Library of Science has PLOS Biology, Genetics, Medicine, and those have a restriction to how many papers they publish. They have like monthly issues, very much like a traditional journal, and PLOS-1 was a kind of conceptual kind of paradigm shift. So I'll begin talking more about the traditional journals, then Bernard will talk about his experience with PLOS-1 and open publishing in general. And then Gene Maui, who is the now Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Royal Australian College – Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, will talk about his experience with a society-based journal. So I'll begin here with a few words myself about scientific publishing and kind of what has been happening so far in the traditional media. So as you can see there, it's a very high-risk sport in which you have a fantastic reward. I hear that actually in China, if you have a paper published in Nature, the next day the Ministry of Science and Technology gives several million dollars to your lab. So you can have that very enticing piece of cheese there, but it's very hard to get there, yes. So one thing that people comment, and it's kind of a perception by many people, is that publishing in that kind of publication, very high-end, is really like a club. And some people get an in and you see their names often in those same journals, and other people you can send very interesting material and doesn't get past the door. So is it really a club? And if so, how could you possibly break through? So will people who are not part of the club publish there? Because I mean, in a sense, if you are part of the club and you send a paper to the journal and they accept it, then there is no issue really. I think the problem is for people who are not part of the club. So you have to think a little bit about the perspective of the other side. So what do the journals want? I mean, you want to publish there, but what do they want? So they want cash. So cash comes in the form of advertising, publicity, marketing, et cetera. So that's tied very closely to visibility and increasingly to high citations. So if it's a paper that you're writing that is likely to be highly cited, you should somehow make that somewhat self-evident, because that's what the journals want. So there's always this perennial war for the highest impact factor. They also like very much to have articles in the lay press that cite that particular journal. And so if the work has an angle that could be newsworthy, that's also helpful. And they of course want to, you know, preserve and enhance and further develop their reputation. Because it's so competitive to publish in these journals, molecular psychiatry, which has an impact factor of 15, in the last year, I think on average for original research articles, we've accepted 4%. In the last six months, it's 3%. So how, when anything is at this very high percentile level, how do you distinguish something that's like on the 3.5 percentile versus something that's not 2.9 percentile? They're essentially the same piece of work. So yes, if the work is poor and bad, then it's, you know, not that interesting. That's not the case, there's no discussion there. But if the work is of very high quality, it gets to a point that whether it ends up published in one venue or another is essentially a matter of luck. It depends on their flow that month, what else they've published. Sometimes if that journal has just accepted a few papers in one area, they may not want the next paper that could even be better. But in the very same area, sometimes they want to put a special issue together on that topic, then the next paper is very much welcome. And you don't know that a priori. So sometimes they've commissioned a very important person on Nobel Prize win or someone really famous who writes an editorial on a topic. And there are two papers already. If the third one comes, it would make the thing even more interesting. So you may be that third paper that they really, like, you know, would like to have. Or that whole effort may have already gone to press. And then when you come with the fourth paper, like, you know, while the other, that whole, you know, combination of two, three good papers with an editorial is already in production, they may not want your work at all. So there is an element of luck in the sense that it's not that whatever you send will be published, but there, when the competition is very fierce, there are a lot of other factors that are coming to play. And in a sense, it does make a journal look good to reject a lot of papers. So in the publishing world, they call your work copy and tough is a very good thing. So this is not that, you know, every paper will end up in these journals, but this is to give you an idea of what, like, you know, the top end of the traditional publishing domain is looking for. So nature likes work that's conceptually novel. So if you have something that's the first time that something like this has ever been thought of, or done or demonstrated, that's very helpful not only for nature, but for any other journal. The same thing, science puts it a little different, but that's if you can kind of, it's the case for your work and you can pitch it in like that. It's very helpful to show that it's the first publication of a new concept, or the last nail on the coffin of a theory. So if you definitely prove that something that everybody believed in is wrong, that's also very good to help you end up in a high-end traditional journal. Or if it has very high relevance for the practice of medicine. So it could be something very hand-drum and very, you know, not exciting, but if it would make a difference in clinical practice, then it tends to get, you know, may end up in a very good traditional journal. So this is what I had to say about kind of a traditional publishing and, you know, fighting the battle to get your work to the highest echelons of traditional venues. And while it's becoming increasingly difficult to get there, and maybe because of that, a lot of other options have come about. So I'll pass the floor here to Bernard to talk a little bit about PLOS one and his experience there. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you, Julia, for the invitation to talk here. I think, as you already indicated, publishing is an important part of how to translate the knowledge we gain in our labs and with our patients into clinical practice. And the question is, how do we disseminate that kind of knowledge? And as Julia was indicating in high-ranking journals as molecular psychiatry, most of the papers actually get rejected, and many of them who get rejected are qualitatively very good papers. And I think there may be PLOS one or other open access journals come in which are publishing online only. So what you see here on that slide is sort of the general statement of publications accepted by PLOS one. And we'll go to that in the next slide a little bit in more detail. So it has a rigorous peer review, which is not different to any print media. It concentrates on objective and technical concerns, so maybe not so much about particular content, for example. And it's very important that the research has been well conceived and so well executed, and the results are supported by the methodology and the conclusions by the results. So I would say that's probably a more technical approach. But I think what it also does is it tries to accelerate research. And in the last five years PLOS one in particular has been existing as a public library of science in various areas like genetics, biology, and PLOS one as an additional one. And the impact factor I think speaks to that acceleration of publications has been raised within two years from zero to 4.5, which indicates sort of the high turnover. When you look at the criteria for publication, again, this is more technical. And I think that's important to note because there's basically no limitation in accepting the number of publications in an online-only journal. So you're not restricted in the way that you press for space, for example. I think that's a very important point to make. And looking at my experience as the editor of the Neuroscience and Psychiatry section, we get hundreds of high-quality papers and only those who do not fulfill the quality standard of well-perceived and well-conceived and supported publications, they do get rejected. So there's a large amount of papers which get accepted given their quality. And in the Neuroscience area, and I think the Neuroscience-Psychiatry area, which I'm editing, is very relevant probably for translation of psychiatry from a content point of view, although we do not judge the acceptance process on content so much because I think what we've heard today that Neuroscience plays the major driver, actually, into defining the treatment opportunities of biomarkers for our patients and that links very closely to what we see in clinical practice. When we compare the open access and the print media on sort of those categories and some of which has already been done by Julia and myself, so one is the accessibility. So obviously, everybody can access open one, open online journals only. That's not a problem with a computer. And the costs are carried by the author, which is, I think, another major difference to the print media. Although for people working in the university, we obviously have no problems to having access to print media as online versions. But I think when you look at the broader community and society maybe in general, it might be very good to actually have a very broad access for journal papers to the general community and maybe not only to those who sit and have access. Then print media journals are very pressed for space, as we know. So I think that's a major advantage in online only journals that we can accept not only a large variety, but also maybe from a content stream point of view a larger amount of publications there. And the points on high impact factors or what we have here in Australia, the quality indicators of ERA, they obviously drive researchers to submit to certain journals or to try to publish in the high-ranking journals. But I believe that these impact factors, classical impact factors, may in the long term may not be the major driver for publication. Although it's still very important, but ERA and other exercises in the UK, for example, have shown that other quality measures are very important. And I believe that sort of the turnaround time which was one of the initial characteristics of open access journals that was very short and brief, I think that's probably no longer true and that's why I put there a question mark for the opposite in print media, which is supposed to have a more longer term turnaround time. That's probably not any longer true. And therefore, in a sense, that kind of distinction which you've just seen is a little bit artificial, I believe, after these four or five years. I've been working in that area of open access because these principles seem to sort of vanish between the different media where we publish. However, I think it's important when we publish and we want to choose a journal, what are the motivations and what is the quality and the incentives for publishing. And I think that's probably built the link to the last presentation by Professor Amali. So what is really the motivation to submit? Is it only the impact factor or is it dissemination or is it turnaround time or is it a content identification with a certain community of people? Do you want your article to read? Or are there maybe also dissemination motivations, like having it widely disseminated, having it disseminated also maybe to other groups in the community and in the larger society? Then another question is really who is attracted to certain journals. Is that still only that the sort of hardcore scientists are attracted to the high impact factor journals like Nature Science and others? Or what kind of people do we attract? And from the open access plus one experience in neuroscience, we attract many, many papers from the NIH, for example, in the neuroscience era. So really high quality research groups who publish there. And another big question we can discuss a bit later is really how much does the format we provide publications in drive the content? So do we get less quality in one or the other? Or do we get only certain contents in one journal format and not in the other one? And I think that's very important when we discuss translation of psychiatry as an area to be maybe more in the foreground. How do we facilitate choosing which kind of format? And Julie may be able to discuss that with the new journal on translation of psychiatry, which is an online journal. But also incentives for publishing, obviously for the people we work with, it costs some money to submit to certain journals, whereas sometimes people do not have the cash flow available for that. And new formats maybe more sort of hybrid between the two formats might evolve in the future. I think that's what I wanted to say about that experience and maybe some points here, as I said, on the last slide for discussion later on when we've heard Jim talking. Thank you. Thank you, Bernad. And I've got only two slides because really a lot of the things have already been covered and we'd wanted to really have a flow so we could go on to discussion. It's really exciting to be here, though, because I'm just thinking of or conceptualizing this as a sort of a nebula in which a star is being formed, namely transcultural psychiatry, a new journal is taking shape. And I think this goes back to Scott's point. What is to be done, particularly around ANZJP? And you've no doubt noticed a gradual shift from Julio's molecular psychiatry to Bernad's PLOS, and now we're talking about ANZJP. One can't help but think you're looking at a downward slope. And I say that because there is a problem that we have in comparing different journals because different journals have different audiences. And the thing that distinguishes ANZJP is that it is a college journal, first and foremost. It's supported by a college. And as a consequence, has quite a different audience and different needs. The plus side is that it does have 3,000 plus members who subscribe to the journal automatically by membership. But that can also be a point of complacency. It can lead to having a captive audience and therefore you don't really strive to develop the journal. And that's reflected, I think, to some extent in the impact factor. Though it would be interesting to come back to discussions around what the impact factor means and how that's applied. Just as a starter, though, one example in terms of citations and in terms of perceptions of journals and how they're perceived, the British Journalist psychiatry, for instance, from overseas perspective is a reasonable journal, has a reasonable impact factor. And it's got a broad audience. However, within the UK itself, it's not valued, both by the MRC and the WELCOME, that see it as a homegrown journal and therefore value it much less than journals across the channel in Europe. And that really does set up a problem for researchers, for instance, in the UK, if they're wanting to have their research rated. Even if they published in the BJ Psych, it wouldn't be valued as much by the WELCOME or the MRC as much as they would if they were publishing in an overseas journal, although that journal may actually have a lower impact factor and profile. And so these are the issues around publishing, which I think authors need to be cognizant of as to publishers. Now, the other issue that Bernard mentioned about online and hard copy, the ANZJP is available in both. And there is something still, certainly for members, who prefer to have the hard copy. But I can see this change very rapidly coming through in terms of cost, limiting us to ultimately become online only. And there are advantages only last week when we were discussing the journal at one of the editorial meetings. The issue about additional material came up and now lots of research requires additional material to be included or at least cited. And it's not possible to accommodate that in a hard copy. And so we were quite happy to be creating a library and creating a data set or bank online for people to be able to access the information who might be interested. And I think relatively recently, the journal has gone fully to electronic submission and review. And that's expedited matters, though. I think from my experience of a number of other journals, there is still some advantage in having some office or some personal contact with those that are submitting. So as to be able to give some proper feedback as to what the delays may be or what the problems may be with the manuscript that they've submitted, electronic submission can be quite a problem in itself in terms of being quite anonymous. And that's certainly the case for reviewers and the review process, which I think is a separate issue again, which we'll probably come back to. The editorial board, I just wanted to mention because two of the associates editors are in the audience today, Michael Burke and Scott Henderson. And we've tried to capture people from across Australia and New Zealand in order to really reflect the demographic that submit to the journal. And what is interesting about this particular journal is that the majority of submissions are local still. However, we are getting an increasing amount from overseas, but the biggest issue really comes down to what motivates people. And access and turnaround is still a key issue for the ANZJP that currently sits around two to three months in terms of getting early online and it can be somewhat longer for hard copy appearance. Now, I've only actually taken over the journal as of January, so it's still somewhat new and still somewhat fresh to some of the data. But percentage-wise, the local versus international breakdown is around 70 to 30%. So 70% of admissions submissions are coming from Australian New Zealand authors, whereas only 30% are coming from the rest of the world, which is really quite small for a more generalist journal. And that's the other point that really I hadn't mentioned that it's probably not in the same bracket of neuroscience as the other journals that you've just heard about. And that's really because it is catering to these three groups. And that's been made very clear in discussions both with the college and discussions we've had within the editorial board that there are clinicians, psychiatrists who want to see a certain set of outputs in this particular journal, things that are relevant to them. And they, I think on the whole, though they like the research, they really want it knotted down into a key point. But they would rather prefer reviews or overviews or even editorials or commentaries around a particular issue that's of clinical salience to them. The researchers obviously have already been outlined what their particular motivations are. And this type of journal may or may not be able to feed into that. And finally, trainees, I think because it's a college journal again, it does need to have something for the trainees. So this is quite a hard balancing act to have very disparate demands being put on the journal and how to actually bring all those together. Finally, I just wanted to mention that Julia mentioned about rejection rate, et cetera. And the rejection rate for ANZJP is quite high, 75%. But that's really rather inflated. And the reason for that is that the quality of submissions is quite varied as well. I'd imagine that the quality of submissions is quite different to some of the other journals. And hence, a lot aren't really substantive enough to be published at all. So just having a higher rejection rate in itself, the statistic needs to be couched in the context of what is the overall quality of journals that are being submitted. I'll stop that. So I'd like to open the floor for discussion or pull the chair to the front here. And please feel free to ask questions and to discuss different points. Thank you. They have had the question, yes. No, these are very good points. I think that the issue of open access attaches the first point very, very well. So just repeat the points. The first one was the issue of translation and accessibility, especially. And then the second one had to deal with the vast amounts of information that's out there. So addressing the first one, the issue of open access makes a huge difference. Because even though, I mean, I've always been affiliated with some university or another, but you are traveling or at home, your connection between your home network and work is not functional some days. So if you're not accessing the internet through a university website, a lot of the print journals will only give you the abstract and you cannot see the paper. And the open access ones will give you that information from anywhere. I actually have two very good friends who are academic oncologists at MD Anderson in Texas. And they said, Julia, it's very amazing to us because they really struggle and go back and forth with these very top tier journals, both general like Science and Nature and Nature Medicine and also Cancer Cell, et cetera. So it's like a struggle to publish and they go to multiple review processes and sometimes it's like an additional year, year and a half of experiments to get the paper published. And then he said, what really everybody writes to us about in comments when we get students from different countries are the papers that come out in PLOS one because anybody anywhere in the world just goes on the internet and gets the full paper for free. So I think that this issue of open access, it's a little kind of costly for the author at the beginning of the process but then makes the material, the full material, not just the abstract, available to anybody, anywhere in the world that has an internet, whether you are connected through a big university library or not. And I would just confirm what Julia said that on the other hand, maybe to your second point on the translation. So how do you fill these virtual space actually in an open access journal with content? And that's maybe sometimes the trouble we run into from that point of view because basically if the acceptance is based on technical criteria rather than sort of certain contents, then you have limited influence on the content. However, the way we try to address that is to have from time to time special issues on certain topics and so forth. So you can do that. But I think that's maybe related to my last point that we maybe get new formats in the future where we have maybe open access to basically all journals but drive the content within these journals by which mechanism that's a good question how to do that. Because eventually the editors and the review process, they decide what's going to be published and what's not. And therefore we don't see what's not going to be published. And I think open access will address some of these issues related to that, of what's usually not getting to go published. Yeah, I'll make some comments and pressure the others but it is an issue. And one thing that there was a very strong movement that Harold Varmus began when he was director of the NIH and I think that gave the impetus to the PLOS process to begin with. It was him plus some other people. But the idea that the information has to be made freely available and to everyone anywhere in the world. But the issue is that to this day there is a cost of publishing. So it's not completely for free. And so you need to have like, you have to oversee the process of peer review. You need to have people who do the type setting and arrange the proofs and deal with the marketing. So there are people that are employed by a journal and need to earn a salary. So a lot of them belong to commercial companies that exist to make a profit, such as the Macmillan Group that owns Nature and Molecular Psychiatry and Translational Psychiatry. Elsevier apparently is the second, it's the number one Dutch company. And Netherlands is one of the top economies in the world. So the number of companies, scientific journal publishing company. Shell is bigger than Elsevier but it's a Dutch Anglo consortium. So that's a solely Dutch, the biggest companies Elsevier. So yeah, some people do want to make an extra profit but some like the Public Library of Science, they are not for profit but they have to at least cover their costs. But there is a cost out there and it becomes very difficult if the authors are not going to pay the cost, I mean the readers are not going to pay the cost which has been a traditional model. And that's why things are not so easily accessible on the web because people either have to pay for the paper or have a subscription. But if you abolish that, then the cost has to go to the other side. And yes, it is somewhat unfair to the author, especially if you have a big research grant, you know you just put charge that to the grant that no pain, there's no issue there. But if you're not externally funded, then it becomes very difficult. How does a registrar who has an interesting idea and writes a review and gets it accepted, who's going to pay the $3,000? Or if you are someone in practice and you've seen a number of interesting cases or a new side effect that nobody has reported yet and you want to put out there, should you pay out of your pocket for that? So I don't know that there is a very easy answer to that and I'd like to pass this difficult question to my colleagues who may be more insightful. My view really is that there needs to be a change in terms of valuing publications, full stop. I mean the problem as I see it, it's just, Junior just touched on it. We've all just gone through a phase of writing grants but I'm sure that no one in their grant put in a quanta which said, for publication of outcomes from this grant, this is the money that I'll be allocating. And that should be built into the grant process. If we're expected to have outcomes from the research and those outcomes are also expected to be published and disseminated, then clearly there has to be an understanding there's going to be a cost associated with that. So why not build that into the grant just as we do for every other aspect? So that's the first thing. Those people outside of the grant process, I think they do need support and good example of that again is the area health services. Now a lot of clinicians are employed by the area health service. They won't necessarily be working as a large part of a large research consortium or have their own particular grant or get funding from university. And there, if again the area health services genuinely want improvement through quality audit or clinical improvement and support clinical research, then part of that should also be to pay for publications and I've found that in discussions with our area health service, there's been real reluctance to do that. And they don't actually understand that particular process not necessarily that they're reluctant to give the funding but they understand the front end cost of doing research. They can understand you need a research assistant, you need to cost of materials, et cetera, et cetera. But for some reason they don't understand fully that research per se costs and publication would cost. So that's really something that needs to change in our perception of where publication is. And I think publications then need to be valued. So I think it'll be an iterative process if they appreciate the fact that the message is getting out that findings are being published and that there's some benefit to area health services or institutions or individuals, then there's more likely to be flow on of money. But I agree with you about the funding is that has to be there because there is a fairly costly process and yet the most costly aspect of this particular model is not funded and that's the reviewers, the editorial boards, the editors and so on. So imagine if that had to be funded as well. That's a very interesting topic. For those who didn't hear is the issue of peer review and what is there any kind of a hardcore criteria for acceptance or rejection and should it be really anonymous? So it's a very, very complex point. The, there has been some push. There was one, Jordan, I forget which one. It's not a very famous one that actually would put the name of the reviewers after the paper was published. So it would put the name of the paper and then like, you know, say reviewed by, like, you know, in PNAS you have edited by someone. So they would put reviewed by X, Y and Z and the names would come out there. So that's one model, but the actual reviews are not there. There is another model that I've seen discussed a lot, but I don't know that anybody's actually doing this right now in medical research, but the idea has been circulating, which is to provide the very basic screening as if the paper is like horrible and there's like some terrible, you know, problem. Yes, not published, but I have a very low threshold if they are above the threshold just publish them and either with reviews or without there being discussion of this model but then put like an open, like a blog on each paper so people can, you know, post the comments so anybody can be a reviewer and they post the comments there and people can actually rate the paper. So you would have the paper like you would have the paper with the rating and with the comments beneath it and then it's kind of a very open process. I'm caught in a quandary that sometimes the people who review for molecular psychiatry, they sign the reviews and implying that they want the, they don't have a problem with the author of the paper seeing who did the review, but because only a very small minority of people does that very reluctantly, I just go highlight the person's name and delete, you know. So the author does not get the names. So it's a very difficult process, you know, do you make the reviewers names available? Is the review, would people be less rigorous and are kind of nicer if they had their names exposed but the flip side of that is that maybe they are being too nasty under the cloak of anonymity. And one thing which I discovered this was one of the first issues of molecular psychiatry was just getting out. This is like, you know, in the 90s, early 90s, there was a paper that went to someone that I know was a very opinionated person and my home number has never been unlisted. Some people are very like suspicious. They'd never put my phone number like if you go to the white pages in camera and put my name, you'll see my home number. But I mean, I never thought too much about that. So this was like a long time ago. I was in my home like eight o'clock in the morning or something and I get this phone call of this person, very irate, was the author and found my home number and called me. And she was furious that she had suggested some people as reviewers and I had put two of her suggested people and one that was of my own. And then very inadvertently and after this, and I should not have done this at that point and I've never done it before or after, but in some conversation I had with her prior to this telephone call, she said, did you use my suggested reviewers? I said, yes, I used two of them, but just came out and I just blurted that out. So she got the reviewers comments with three reviews and one of them, so if I had told her that I had used two, so one of them was not one of her friends. So one of the people that she recommended. So she calls me like very angry and said, you know, I don't know that person that you chose who he or she is, but he doesn't know anything about the field. And it's completely off and went on on this diatribe on the phone, I was like, you know, waking up and I think I was just coming out of the shower. And I said, what is this, you know? And then when I looked later, that person that she was so angry about was actually her former PhD supervisor and the one that she had. And she had said, if you only had sent to someone so that I suspect you didn't, then there was another one. She would really have understood what I'm trying to do. And that was the very negative reviewer. But thank God there was no internet like at that instance. I only saw that later. But people that you think are your friends are not your friends. And I see this before I would be very reluctant to send to suggested reviewers because I said, oh, this is like, you know, the person's friends. But the people that people suggest tend to be the worst ones. So when I think they hide that they are your friend to your face, but they hide another cloak of anonymity and then really stick the knife as deep as it goes. So I think that the process is very flawed. And one thing that I try to communicate to people but there is no nice way to say this is that it's really a very subjective process. So why is paper A, because I mean, yes, if they come, you know, sent to three reviewers and there was actually a person who tried to appeal a decision very hard. But when two, three reviewers came to three reject, you know, three recommendations to reject outright. I can't accept that paper, you know, if the person can appeal and they complain, et cetera, but it's not, you know, a gray zone kind of thing. But then you get the paper that has, you know, two recommendations for major revision, one for minor revision. Do you accept? Do you send back for review? Do you say, no, we don't want it? So it depends a lot on the area, on the priority, on the strength of the work on who the reviewers are because some people are very tough and nasty and they always recommend, there was one reviewer in molecules, I got a very well-known person in the field that rejected everything that I ever sent to him. And then recently he put, sent one paper back with a major revision and I almost accepted the paper like on the spot. And because after like, you know, 12 years, this person's a very crusty, very famous geneticist who never accepts anything, gets this paper from like a third party, like from some other country and says that there is some merits there that should be very special, you know? So sometimes the major rejection can be very good depending on who it comes from. So it is a very subjective process and there is, that's why I say that like, you know, it gets to a point that it's almost like, you know, the luck of the draw. But maybe on the points of reviewers' names be published together with their reviews, actually BMC, Biomedical Central, they do this as a common. In plus one, there is the option, but it's up to the reviewer to decide whether they want their name to be listed or not together with the review. And so they're probably different procedures, maybe, you know, depending on the temperament of the journal to do that. And probably there's no golden rule really to go one or the other way. Well, I just wanted to draw on that first point, Julia made, on how papers are, whether they are reviewed by two or three people and then sort of going to be accepted or if there are other ways of evaluating papers in the larger scientific community. And there's actually plus one stimulates that process in addition to a peer review process. So when the paper is actually published, so it's not based on, this isn't making process, but when it's published, it's out there and people can make comments on the paper in a block sense or an online version. And then papers can actually be modified later on. The point I like to make, so it's a good way to do this, I think intellectually, the point is practically there's little use of that mechanism made because it's so time consuming once a paper is published to sit down and actually type your comments into that and then I'll write back to the author or to the publisher or editor, that's a lot of work and you just wonder what is the outcome of that other than you're expressing your opinion maybe. Doesn't change the quality of the research but I think to have that option available that the larger community can comment in an online environment on papers without being sort of subject to review process, I think that's a good idea maybe. Just, sorry, just quickly on that point, I think it's really important that we do think about this model of open review. It doesn't seem to be practical though unless all the journals adopted because I think there's two levels of competition here at the moment. Journals that are vying for papers or certain types of copy, if they were to have such a stringent, a threshold for review or to do something that's generally unpopular with reviewers, then they're likely to lose their pool of potential people who would review for them. However, if it was uniform and universal, then I think it would be an accepted practice. In terms of whether you should do it or not, I actually just picking up on the points that have been made feel that there would be a lot more clarity about both in terms of the reviews themselves, people would put reasonable effort into putting those reviews together and it would get away from this double box feedback that we get where you have private comments to the editor and different comments to the authors which is always problematic in terms of trying to work out what the reality is, often get very, very different views and I think there should be some open and transparent way of capturing the dialogue because that's actually part of the publication process and some of the feedback and some of the comments that I even made privately would actually help the authors improving the manuscript and if we're really wanting to play cricket, then I think we all take on the same rules and then we understand it's a competition but we do it fairly and that should over time weed out people who don't want to play fairly. I'll take the questions. I just wanted to make two quick questions. There is one model that we didn't discuss which nature has put out some time ago and it's not been a complete failure but it's not been the biggest success either so it's kind of a lumping along which is the precedence model. So in the physical sciences, people post their papers like on a public website they get a ton of comments that's presented in meetings even cited and then eventually it's actually published. So nature created this for the biological sciences as well and it's a site called Nature Preceding so you can actually send your paper there and they just check if it's absolute garbage or not. If it's garbage against green doubt but if it's not complete garbage, it gets into the website and you can cite it and technically within the nature family of journals then you can submit to a journal can undergo peer review doesn't count as previous publication but some other publishing houses sometimes count that as previous publication the paper then cannot be published there but there is this idea that the paper can be on the website with comments and people can put comments they can vote on the paper but it already exists for biological sciences it's not used as much but it's called Nature Preceding and then we had two questions here, Jill. Yes, that's a very interesting idea to have the institutions or national bodies subsidized the cost of open access publishing and then people who don't have an institutional affiliation they could be cross subsidized. So it's an excellent idea I know that PLOS when they have an agreement with certain institutions that they give like a discount because they send a lot of papers but whether that could create a cross subsidized or others that's a very good point and should keep that in mind. Yes, that's a very interesting point. Steve had a question so now there is this Nature Preceding that's the idea but it's kind of lumping along, in a sense. It is a difficult issue this thing of the amount of publication and what's clinically relevant and how can people digest all of that. Bev had raised that before I think one thing that we are partially to blame I mean we, I mean like older kind of more experienced people which is that information is very easily available now and I think I should for sure be but I think others as well should be much more stringent with younger people like PhD students, postdocs, clinical trainees and we should just demand that they know the information that's out there because it's impossible for a senior person to do everything that they have to do but people who are in training should be very, they are very good with computers with good information with going from one side to the next and then sometimes you ask very simple questions about what's out there and they just don't know. So I think we should create an expectation that if you are gonna come and be a medical student to register a trainee, a resident, a postdoc fellow, a graduate student that you could be asked at any point about what's going on in the field and we expect you to know and they have all the accessibility, all the availability to know and there is a lot of just entrenched how could I say laziness or not being very eager to see what's happening but I think that part of our training process for the workforce should be to require the filtering and understanding and processing of vast amounts of information and if they can't do that they shouldn't become professionals. Yeah, that's a very good idea. When molecular psychiatry began we had a section that are called general summary that we would get all the papers like two paragraphs about each one written in a lay summary, in a lay person's language and not all of them but the ones that were most appropriate but I think that having a summaries or kind of maybe a section of journals or a section of the website that's made specifically for people who are not scientists could be very helpful. Just picking up on that point Scott, I mean I think with the ANZJP for instance again goes back to my point about journals having different audiences and different perspectives I think that's really a key role for a journal like ANZJP because what has happened in the past few years in particular is that some disorders have been hijacked by the media and the representation in the lay press is totally inaccurate but there's no voice countering it and I think the journal, particularly a journal that represents a body should have a means of addressing a concern in the media and rectifying any misinformation and I think the more we do that the more likely we are to again then capture the interest of the media and be represented there as well but I think that's a fundamental role whether it's actually expressed in lay language per se is a different thing. I think there should be some translational aspects to it so it's easier to understand what the message is and that can be done in a whole variety of ways ranging from correspondence to commentaries to editorials et cetera but I think that's a function of a journal such as ANZJP more so than a hardcore science journal say. It I think is a very interesting point and actually some journals have this practice but it seems to be sort of at random across a biomedical field where this happens and we're not. On the one hand you want sort of more openness and we discussed the points on review your names be published and not having the distinction between comments to the editor and to the authors and on the other hand we want that process maybe to be anonymous. So as you just suggested probably that may cause some friction. If I was sort of the editor of a journal and do one or the other I would probably feel not measuring with the same standards both but I see the value in that that it's becoming more objective but that relates back to the criteria of when do journals become sorry papers become accepted and when rejected and the point of subjectivity you made I think is very important and sort of intrinsically there but probably with orientating ourselves to more objective criteria we might be able to select better. I agree with you Michael but I think you're once again looking at this as a randomized control trial and hoping that the same blinding can be applied. The difficulty practically as you know is that when you read a paper in the methods and often in the descriptions of how papers are written a particular group will have expertise in a particular area. They will often cite with the institution they've got ethics permission from and if they've got a specialized equipment or capacity in terms of a patient cohort they will describe that and have to describe that. So for instance a good example a study that you've published I mean again in terms of it's been a very rich data source the Geelong-Losty-Parisis study I mean that is that's what it's called it'll be very difficult for you to blind that particular study or indeed the ethics surrounding that so many papers are inherently bias and you can't have them totally objectively evaluated in that regard. Okay so we had one last question there. No that's a very difficult question. I, my record has been because you know the reviews don't get paid anything and it becomes a burden and then you have to request like I'm sure that you cannot say yes to all of your request so you say no to many. So the editor has to go to approach more people and more people and more people to get the review and there is I think it's a generational shift but younger people are very very entitled and it's passing you know onto the you know they become they grow old and they become researchers. So you get this very nasty letters from authors saying I've sent my paper like you know six weeks ago eight weeks ago I haven't heard anything what's going on and like kind of this entitlement when most people are doing that part of the work for free so there was one paper that I processed that I had to send to 17 reviewers. I mean request 17 people to be reviewers so that I could get two to get an opinion and you know you don't request 17 people right away you request two, three or four or five and then you don't do it and then you wait a little bit and then you ask more and the process goes and it takes a long time and people get very angry so it's a very difficult thing because you know where do you find all these reviewers and who is gonna do all these reviews and some people are very specialized there are just a few people in that area in the world. So it is a very tough point and as more and more journals come up I don't know how they're gonna cope with this problem. But one quick question I'd like to ask Paminda is you said you reject a lot of these requests what is it from your perspective when you see an invitation that would make you review a paper as opposed to saying I can't be bothered to do this and if it was personalized to you so if there was an invitation from someone... We have to finish but there is like one last question here so let's... Yes, that's an interesting point. Yes. Okay. So, okay. On that note I think we should stop here and move on with the program. Thank you all. Thank you.