 So then in terms of writing the review, so what happens here? So we think that there's a couple key elements to the review. The first is summarizing the manuscript. So this is generally one to two paragraphs where you feedback to the authors in your own words what this paper is about. What's the question? What are the approaches? What are the findings? What does this mean? And basically the point of this is to make sure that you have an accurate understanding of the work because maybe you got something wrong and then your critiques aren't aren't appropriate because maybe you've misunderstood something from the beginning. That's useful for everybody to know because if you're just not on the same page for some basic misunderstanding, then that means the critiques need to be evaluated. The other part of that also is if the reviewers can't summarize the paper, that kind of is useful information for the writers because, you know, you want things to be really, really clear. And if all of the reviewers are like, then it's good to back up as the researcher and say, okay, I really need to overhaul this. So the summary is actually super duper helpful. And when I submit a paper and the reviews don't have the summary, it feels kind of spooky. It's like it's better to have a read on how much the reviewers were able to understand and assimilate the information from the paper. So the summary is really important. And when I review a paper, I find the summary super helpful for me as a reviewer because it helps me kind of get my ducks in a row before I get into the weeds, into the details. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so I think I hit on these points of the things that should be in that, or you'd like to think about to be in the summary. So I think they're all in point here. I think the one maybe thing I didn't point out is, you know, again, are there things that are exciting, interesting, important about this? This is a great place to put it because, of course, we've all received reviews from papers, too. It's nice to hear if the reviewers are excited about something. And so in terms of writing a balanced review, even if you're going to go on to critique aspects of the paper, there's things that are interesting or exciting to you to lay them out up front is, I think, a nice thing to do. And then you can also include outstanding questions. You know, they've demonstrated X. This leads to the following interesting questions, you know, for follow up studies, things like that. Okay, so then the next general section in the review are the major concerns. And so you should think about the these as things that must be addressed prior to publication. These can be experimental requirements. They can be major writing requirements as well or both. And so typically things that would constitute major concerns are things like experimental design flaws, you're missing controls, your sample sizes are too small. You don't have an appropriate numbers of repeats. You've applied the wrong statistics. So you've made the wrong conclusions. Your methodology is inappropriate for the question you're asking. As interpretation of results is also a major concern or failure to address alternative interpretation. So if the results could mean one or two of two things, they should both then be experimentally addressed or at least discussed so that it's clear what the limitations are of the study. If there's no novelty, this is a major concern. So if this work has been demonstrated elsewhere, then this is should be noted at this point as well. And then if the data don't support the conclusion. So maybe the data are sound, but the way the authors, what the authors conclude from them is not appropriate or not correct. This is a concern. And this is a good point or place for you to suggest alternatives. If you, if this is obvious to you of what to do to fix these major concerns. I think it's important on when considering major concerns is to remember what the authors are trying to do here. What was the question? What was our hypothesis? So sometimes reviewers really expand the scope of a study for the authors, helping them answer questions that they did not set out to address. And that's not the point of the review unless the scope is too narrow in and of itself, which would be one of your major concerns. They haven't, they've only done one experiment or something like that. Then you might help them expand the scope of the study. So it meets the standards of the journal, but otherwise try to focus on helping them think of the experiments that are required to answer the question they have set out to answer in their study. So, so those are the major concerns. Then we come to minor concerns. These are things that would improve the presentation, the clarity of the work. These are typically easy. You shouldn't take months and months talking a week or something like that to fit to fix these sort of things. So it can be things like grammar and spelling. I typically will point out a couple of these if I find a paper that's riddled with grammar spelling mistakes. I don't copy edit it in the review, but I would just make a note that I've highlighted a few and then the author should take note to fix them throughout. Accuracy of scientific language and nomenclature. So, you know, are they using the right words, strain names, methodology, whatever it is in the specific sub-discipline. Are the references missing? That's a minor concern. Missing methodological details if there's not enough detail for you to actually do the experiment. This would be typically a minor concern. Suggestions for improvement of layout, organization, tables and figure presentation or design as well. Typically, these are minor concerns for the authors to fix. So then when we go ahead, I think maybe this should be under the major concerns, but I was also thinking that if you cannot review the data, because you require raw data or some kind of data to analyze. That would be under major concerns, depending on how significant it is, and you can always request that of the editor to obtain that from the authors because you should be able to repeat or double, you know, check on the data sets. So sometimes that requires an extra step to request. And again, depending on how significant that is, whether you need to classify it under minor or major concerns. Yeah. Yeah. And I've seen that come up, especially in the context of sequencing data where the reviewer actually wants to download it from the public database where it's supposed to be and do some, you know, quick re-analyses. And sometimes I see where reviewers say they've done it and they're really happy with it. And then this is also where it can come up that it's not uploaded where it should be or it's not formatted properly or it's not usable. So then at this point, sort of just assembling all of that information into a review. I think it's important to write the review that you want to receive. No one likes a mean review. It doesn't feel good to any of us. It makes us sad. So, you know, keep in mind the review should help improve the manuscript. That's your goal. These are your friends and we want to do better science with them. Use neutral language. Don't personalize things. If a paper really makes you angry or upset, write a review and then go away and then come back to it when, you know, and sort of edit it down. Right. One helpful piece of advice that I got when I was on a review panel for proposals is never refer to the authors by name. Refer to the manuscript. The manuscript blah, blah, blah, blah. The data show blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Never refer to an author, especially when you've got constructive criticism. It helps the authors actually see it instead of feeling attacked. So, in personal language is good. Definitely. I'd like to add something about about this because I have a lot of experience. When you finish writing your review. Do not send it immediately. Write at least 24 hours or a night and read it again and make sure that there is no trace of an emotional reaction. The language has to be completely neutral. The other thing I would like to add also is and I will tell you about how to critique a paper to write new to do with the data or whatever. Well, in many cases, there is no critic to be written. And I think we tend to always want to write a critique and whereas it probably should not be a critique. Keep in mind that there are different ways to write a discussion, for example. And it's not necessarily your way, but it might be just as good a way. So, keep in mind that you don't have to write a critique for the sake of writing something. That's important. Yeah, absolutely. If you do have a critique, however, provide suggestions where possible. Again, with the intention of helping to review a manuscript. Now, this is a balance because sometimes it could take you a whole lot of effort and work to help them design the right experiment and that's not your job necessarily either. So, if you have to balance this for them or balance this for yourself to some degree. And then, again, if you're enthusiastic about anything, say so this is your chance to also to provide that balance and that positive feedback as well. So, Katie mentioned that we at the journal have the opportunity to do transparent peer review where you can actually have your name attached to your reviews if you like that's not a requirement, but I think it's useful to keep that in mind. So, write a review that you would be stand by if everybody saw your name attached to it, you know that I think that can also help temper the language that you choose to use. So, in the last steps, this is what it actually looks like at the journal. So, you'll have a PDF or a Word document of that review that critique that you've written up. You'll be asked to address a couple of questions. Is this have they applied ethical standards for doing animal and human research. So, if you're familiar with those things and that's in the manuscript and you can say yes. If you have concerns, absolutely say no, and then you can communicate this to the editor as well and hopefully this is already in your critique. Are there suspicions of plagiarism, dual publication, falsification of data. So, FEMS runs a plagiarism check on the manuscript for language and so we see that as editors in chief. So, if there's plagiarism, blatant plagiarism will catch that up front and it won't go out for review. And so, typically we catch that, but that's that's blatant plagiarism. So, it will be harder for us to catch plagiarism of ideas that might be structured. This looks exactly like another paper, but the language is different that you can see that sometimes it won't catch issues with figures at all. And so, we really rely on the reviewers to look at this carefully. You know, sometimes mistakes happen. I had an example of this recently where a manuscript in the supplement, the authors uploaded the wrong figure and it happened to be a figure they had published previously. And so, we took it back to them. They were mortified. It was a terrible mistake. I got a three page explanation of how this mistake actually happened. It was a file misnaming thing. But, you know, sometimes this can happen obviously on purpose as well. So this is important for you to catch and if it's happening so that we can address it appropriately. Okay. So then you will be asked to make a recommendation about the manuscript except minor revision major revision or reject. And again, this kind of just goes along with your critique if you mostly have minor revisions. Nothing big, no big experimental asks. This can be minor. Typically, if there's experimental issues to be addressed, this would be a major revision. If there's so many experiments to be addressed that they couldn't return it in a couple months. You know, that should be your sort of standard two to three months max. It should be rejected. You are also can send private comments to the editors at this point if there's something that you want to flag that didn't want to put in the review itself for some reason. This is where you can do this. Sometimes this is things like plagiarism concerns if you're whatever reason not comfortable putting that into the main review. And then there's always this place where you can put comments. I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt Kimberly I thought you're moving on to comments for the author of the things that another thing to throw in here that you may have just been starting to mention is this is where you can also mention the parts that you're an expert on and feel very comfortable with being able to critique and then say hey you know I've never actually sequenced and so those data I did not address. Thank you that's not what I was going to say so thank you for that. I was going to just move on and so then the comments to the author this is typically just redundant for the document that you've already written some people just copy and paste that whole document into this box as well. So getting recognition for your review so it's really important for us is that you especially as early career researchers get recognition. Because we think it's important for career development that you're not hiding in the shadows of your P.I. or supervisor and doing it as a ghost writer. So we have a couple different mechanisms to get for you to get recognition. So as was mentioned already we have this transparent peer review process so you are asked whether you would be happy to disclose your identity as a reviewer of the manuscript. You do not have to say yes but you can say yes here I'd be happy to have my name shown after acceptance or no I prefer not. But the authors may choose to publish the reviews as supplemental material that's the author's decision. So even if your name is not attached to it you the reviews could be published anonymously. So those are the options here. So that's for transparent peer review and then we also our reviews are recognized in Publons so you can have an account in Publons and get your review sort of rostered in Publons as well. Can I add to something here. So it's actually really important that when you do your reviews that you do not if you plan to not identify yourself here not to identify yourself in any way in the review by accident or or inadvertently. It should be anonymous until the late last stage at least in this particular review process. But it's also important to think about what Patrick mentioned that to read your review the next day or after period and also reflect on the fact that you may or may not have disclosed to your.