 Hello, welcome to this special webinar on to accept or not accept what makes a good scientific editor. My name is Simon Clark and I'm the European Geoscience Union's Project Coordination Officer. Today we have three speakers, all senior editors from one of our longest running open access journals, atmospheric chemistry and physics. We have James Allen, a reader at the University of Manchester and UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Wolf Moola, Deputy Director of the Institute of Energy and Climate Research. And Martina Kramer, Airsoft Physicist also at the Institute for Energy and Climate Research. There'll be time for questions towards the end. If you have a question, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of the screen. I don't think there's any further housekeeping, so perhaps James you'd like to start. Okay, so thank you for listening in. As I said before, my name is James Allen, based in the UK at the University of Manchester, also the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. And the talk I'll be giving on is how to become an editor. Right, so I thought I'd start off just by giving a quick overview of myself, my career and how I ended up as a, you know, where I got to being a senior editor at ACP. I did my undergraduate and my PhD at what was then UMIST, which kind of was ultimately incorporated into the University of Manchester. My background was in the Atmospheric Science group within what was all the old UMIST physics department. And I've since been based out of Manchester also working for the National Centre of Atmospheric Science. Now my chosen area of research is in aerosols, specifically the in situ measurement of aerosols. Those familiar with me work might know the work I did for my PhD and post-doc years, working with aerosols, principally with aerosol mass spectrometry. But I've also done a lot of work within black carbon measurement and also within more general kind of air quality research and also more recently looking at emissions. So how did I become an editor? I just thought I'd post this picture because it's pretty much this guy's fault. My own particular route was being Dave Toppin who for a long time I shared an office with Manchester. But he became an editor before me and so my route to becoming an ACP editor was basically through conversations with him and he referred me on to the ACP executive. But from my perspective a load of this all this kind of happened behind the scenes where I was subsequently got an email asking me if I'd be interested in being an editor. But what it was was basically format sending on my research interest CV etc. One of the things I'd like to think kind of counted towards my case was the fact that I already had quite a record in reviewing so not just in ACP. I'd also managed to get a positive reputation review for other journals as well so I had over the years I've got editors citations for reviewing for JGR as well. And then years later when the roles of senior editors were created I was approached and asked if I was interested in filling a one of the role, one of the positions for the ACP ACP senior editor to the aerosols team specifically and that's been me alongside Yafang Chen at Max Plan. I mean there's one thing it's not necessarily just a progression from reviewing to editing. I thought there's a few things which are fundamentally different between reviewing papers and editing papers I mean, end of the day you're all just kind of reading and deciding if there's anything wrong with them deciding whether to publish them so on and so forth but it's worth remembering that it's a very different kettle of fish between reviewers where the idea is is you can, you can ask some very kind of probing provocative questions about a particular work but at the end of the day all a reviewer does and I sometimes have to remind the reviewers of this is that they only record, they only give recommendations to the editor. So it's the editor that has the ultimate responsibility of what to do with the paper. And that's based on whatever information they have to have, which includes the peer reviews. The decision based, the decision has got to be fair, they've got to be based on scientific quality, novelty important, and very importantly they've got to fit the scope of the journal that you're editing. But the key thing here is this is ultimately based on the principle of academic judgment. Okay, so she's one of the main principles under Payne's academia in general, is you're not just applying kind of flow charts, text boxes, and doing a kind of you're not just applying hard and fast rules that is fundamentally an element of academic judgment that enters into this. So, what kind of skills do you need to be an editor? First of all, you need to be able to assess the context and importance of various works that you presented, and you may have to stray outside your comfort zones because the idea is you want to I when you're doing peer review ideally you want to get perfect matches for the subject matter in the reviewers. Well, when you're editing sometimes you do have to stray outside your comfort zone. So, you don't necessarily have to become an expert in the topic but you do have to try to gain an appreciation of it. You have to have a good appreciation for what it what it is to publish in academia. So when we're talking about what types of evidence and reasoning you need in order to be able to create a journal article or other people would consider worth reading. You need to be able to find potential reviewers for papers, obviously, so you need to, and that again that sometimes straying out your comfort zone. You need to be able to be in case it does occasionally happen when there's disagreement between the authors and the reviewers about who's right and who's wrong you need to be able to adjudicate these arguments in a fair manner. You need to be able to be diplomatic, especially if you're making an unpopular decision. So, inevitably some papers are going to get rejected we need to be able to be able to handle this situation. It's part of your job as an editor to make these difficult decisions and you have to be able to justify them, but also not getting people's backs up in the process. And you need to very occasionally, it's happened to me a few times where you send a paper out to review and the reviewer regrets, regrets the decision of agreeing to review it because they don't like the paper for whatever reason. That's the situation that happens more often than I'd like but we need, we are relying on the goodwill of the reviewers so again we need to be courteous and appreciative in these situations. Of course, we also very rarely you get these awkward situations where some people start behaving in a manner that you don't want that isn't warranted and you do need to calm these situations down. So when's the right time to think about editing. No journal is going to want an editor who doesn't really know what they're getting into you need to have a good appreciation of the publishing process, the whole application of peer review and publishing scientific works and being able to deal with other people. So you need a certain skill set there and a lot of that comes with experience in publishing. You also need some spare time, there's no point taking the job on if you can't afford the time for this the EGU operates the kind of editing and review on a voluntary basis so you are going to have to offer up some of your time for this. You also need the motivation as well because again, this is meant to be a kind of an, you know, an academic endeavor that we're all doing voluntarily. So you don't want to do it just if you, if you, if you, if you don't feel genuinely motivated to do the job then I wouldn't recommend taking it. So with that in mind, I mean if I was someone's to ask me when's a good time for someone to think about being an editor, I put kind of early to mid career as being probably a good time because I wouldn't necessarily advocate getting someone straight out of the PhD to do it. It's a good idea to build some experience with publishing, be it as a lead author, co-author etc or as reviewer so have a good appreciation of the publishing process. Well that said I wouldn't want to rule out if you're kind of later on in your career, but you feel you have the time and the skills to spare then absolutely the journal does appreciate the experience of veteran academics as well. So how do you, this is a question I get asked a lot of this, how do you get to be an ACP editor, what do you have to do, you know, how do you apply for the job. What happens behind the scenes is there is actually a list of potential editors who have either been approached or have approached the editorial board. So that when ACP decides to recruit more editors, either because we're getting, you know, some people have stood down or because we're getting increasing numbers of submissions within a given field or something, we've got a list of people that can maybe call on and see if they're interested in joining the editorial board. I want to make sure that you're on the radar of the editorial board. It's a good idea you can just approach one of the editors. It'd be a good idea to include some kind of information about yourself because they may not know you that well. So like a statement of what it is you do while you're interested and also a kind of CV as well. It's also possible that if sometimes editors get headhunted as well. So sometimes these things do come out of the blue. But the kind of things that count in your favor, if you're wanting to become an editor. Having a good track record. And as regards publishing, so like review process and so on. So we've got our own kind of peer review model and everything. If you've got a good kind of record there and you show a good appreciation of the publishing process that counts towards it. Having a good reputation in your specialist research area that obviously counts for a lot you're going to have to exercise your professional judgment and also like having good knowledge of the subject area obviously helps. So having a good, a good reputation within the research field is obviously cancel off. And then also another thing that will inevitably count towards someone being appointed is if you're working in an area where more editors are needed. The example I was given here would be the area of machine learning within. So it's obviously it's a fast moving field is you know there's a lot of very exciting research and technical developments coming out of this. But we were placed in the situation where we were starting to get more submissions than we had editors that could reliably handle these papers on the board so there was an effort to try and recruit members there. What's the workload. The nominal workload what we ask of people is if you handle is handling six papers a year. The majority of editors don't have a problem managing this although sometimes, you know, obviously everyone's got varying amounts of spare time but that's the kind of expectation. The papers initially you, I like in the system to a sushi belt, where we've got these submitted papers and editors are free to pick which ones come up according to which ones they think they're best suited towards. Well obviously if you're not, if you don't pick up, if you don't actively pick up enough papers then you may get a tap off the shoulder tap on your shoulder if we're trying to find papers for the need editors. I'm pleased to say are quite straightforward. You know the submit a lot of the submissions we get, you know, the authors have put a lot of work into it. There's fundamentally often good research there. So what the job is the editor is to do first of all, decided for the papers. It's in scope and it's of a sufficient basic quality. The majority of papers, I'd like to think up occasionally get someone who perhaps didn't submit it to the most appropriate, you know, ACP might not be the most appropriate journal, you know, might want to go to GMD or something like that, or very, very rarely we get these papers that are obviously substandard, but thankfully they're not very common. So then the next step is soliciting peer reviews. And then after it's gone through the peer review process, then you have to decide if the authors address the reviews comments okay, whether you need to get additional reviews or anything like that, worst case whether you need to reject paper or something. And then once the papers accepted is deciding whether it wants to highlight within, you know, whether we want to put this paper on a pedestal. Well, most of this process is generally quite straightforward, and in many cases quite enjoyable. I'm not going to sugarcoat though you do occasionally get the problem papers that editors are expected to be able to deal with. Unfortunately, these take a disproportionate amount of work to deal with, and regrettably do take up more of your time and cause more stress. One of the examples where ones that are problematic is when the papers kind of at the very margins of the scope of the journal and some difficult decisions have to be made to about whether to accept the paper for peer review in the first place. If you ever get extensive self plagiarism. This problem extent I'm sure most academics are familiar with this because it extends way outside of academic publishing but some authors just don't see the problem with copying previous texts. It's justifiable, particularly if they're giving technical information but I've had, I've had authors do ridiculous things like copy previous stuff that they've already had published from previous articles in the same journal before. Situations like that get awkward. The reviewers, not all reviewers give the equally good reviews. Originally you get the proverbial review or two through who gives a very unhelpful review, or if they just can't be bothered reading it properly. It doesn't help the, well, if they just say yeah this paper looks fine I'm sure the authors happy with that but that's not what peer reviews about any unprofessional conduct. It gets awkward. Thankfully it's rare, but it gets awkward when it happens. There are insufficient revisions. That's if the reviewers, you know they request some changes and the temptation by the authors to give it lip service, but we have to take a firm line on the authors if we do this. And sometimes it can get quite protracted introducing new content this one again super awkward is if you introduce something substantial during the peer review process. This can be a way of sneaking in stuff without having it go through peer review properly but this sort of situation it needs dealing with disputes on technical details, especially if it's at the edge of your expertise. This is where you might have to start getting in more reviewers and things to advise on these things. But thankfully these issues, don't be put off by these are not that common. You know, we are as editors part of our job to deal with it but thankfully it doesn't represent the majority of papers. It's even quite small minority. And we do like to support new editors as well. We last had our big intake we had a series of web online seminars. This was put on by the executive editors but also around to try and interview some to the review process technicalities of how we receive papers, put them you put them through the system who to go to help and stuff. So, all the new editors are signed mentors from amongst the senior editors so someone you can talk to if you're facing difficulties, you know if you're unsure about something, how to deal with the proverbial awkward authors or reviewers and so on. We can offer advice that way. So with that, thanks for listening, and I'm happy to take any questions. So we just move on to the next presentation, which both I think is you. Yeah, I would want to say a few words on this issue what makes a good editor, you will realize that there is an overlap. There's a lot of overlap I think between what, but I will say and probably what Montana will say and then what James has said because a good editor and an editor. The motivation and the points that need to be addressed often quite similar. Anyway, I will go through the questions for about 10 minutes and then I think Martina can take over. Day to day work looks like obviously editing is not everything but if you think about editing is the first thing is selecting the papers and of course, as James has said, an important thing is selecting the right paper so it's which papers can you actually help with the most you need to have some copies, but of course, you need to not need to be the complete expert in a particular field and, of course, in the ACP set up also some ambition is to help with not letting, letting submitted articles to get so called orphan articles or stay orphaned for too long, which means that they don't find an editor. So it's also something that if you think you can deal with a particular topic, even if it's not your central topic you should try and pick up articles that have fallen or in danger of falling through the cracks. One, if you talk about day to day work one thing that I think is important in the editing and this is one of the major things find the finding the right reviews. So they need to be really knowledgeable about the field that the paper is talking about, at least a large part of the fields and papers are covering different aspects. But, of course, they need to find the time and it's one challenge of finding the reviewers and finding reviewers that actually agree to spend that time on the paper and of course reviewing is as everybody learns has done it. Even one time but several times it's, it's even more so it's an important but also time consuming aspect. And if you want to do it properly as reiterating what James said, it is a lot of work you need to really dive into the subject and some superficial about how this is like looks like a nice paper or the other way around superficially as I looked at it I don't like it. This is not helpful at all, especially not to the editor but it's also not helpful to the authors. What does an editor actually do a lot of it is yeah looking at the paper, communicating with the reviewers. And I think this is important for the editor. Yeah, you get the recommendations you're not tied to the recommendations but of course you need to consider them seriously. And if you have the right reviewers, they can be really helpful for the editor's job in actually evaluating the paper in the end and in the end making the decision between accept and reject but there is an interim period. And something James has already mentioned the changes to manuscript are important so reviewers might be generally happy, but and they have particular points that this needs to be changed, and it could be minor details yeah why don't you add another access to this plot. This is someone which is easier to also major issues and if you draw this conclusions, you need to have a different approach or you need to say more details about your model you don't have. I don't know the right chemical equation you don't have the, you make approximations which are not appropriate etc etc. And one way of dealing with that and I think that's also something that an experienced editor would do. If you get revisions, a revised manuscript, look at it, but also don't forget about your reviewers who made these suggestions and it's often a good idea to go back to the reviewers and tell them this is a revision this is a reply by the authors and try and get their feedback and usually they are happy about such a procedure. Because they invested all this effort in reviewing the paper and then the question is, did the authors really react in an appropriate way and a reviewer usually is very interested in, in having a look and making a comment on the quality of the revision, which is also an important part, I think in the editing process. What's about the workload. Yes, it depends of course on how many papers you accept. She accept twice as many papers you might double your workload it's not a one to one relation but obviously it's there is some some relation. So, you need to be careful not to accept too many, but of course your expect to help and, yeah, six is kind of the magic number that you should look at but then it really depends on the paper it's again as as James has said, every paper costs the same amount and unfortunately a few papers cost a lot of the, the lot of the workload of the editor, and it's sometimes difficult to predict in the first place it's like an air quality, which is called cross polluters so it's about 10 15% of the fleet that are responsible for more than half of the emissions. And this is, I think something normally in life but something you need to be aware of. And if this is what I mentioned is, it depends on the individual paper, but particularly a paper might be straightforward well written, getting good reviews, good changes the authors are willing to do the changes and then you have a smooth process which is not two time consuming is still had it's still time consuming after read the papers read the reviews read the replies and so on, but it is kind of a smooth process if you have divergent opinions between authors and reviewers or different reviewers might have very different opinions about the same paper. And then, of course, it is the editor's job to moderate these discussions and come to the session. And, yeah, this is not a really, but it's one part of the work description if you like of an editor to also address these more difficult issues. And the last point, which I stole from Martina because I got my. Sorry about that. The last point on my part is what are the main challenges and how do you solve them and I don't think I need to go into detail here because these are exactly the things that we already talked about the main challenges are really the solutions, disagreements between reviewers disagreements between authors and reviewers, adding in new reviewers which is sometimes a solution, but not always the solution that is the final answer and of course, as you know, the editor knows at least some of the reviewers so they might have different opinions if a particular strong voice or particularly established colleagues makes a comment. Nonetheless, this should not be the ultimate decision it should be. The challenge is to get a balanced view and kind of not have this one particular review the one particular person just dominating the decision on a paper. But with that, I think I should stop and leave the rest of the questions to Martina and then we can have a more extensive discussion I think. I start with something I missed. So this is say something about me James I found it quite nice that you presented yourself a little bit. And yeah, so my, my, my scientific area is also cloud interactions and clouds is specifically ice clouds, serious clouds and but also water vapor and I do over the years measurements and and modeling and measurements I started with measurements I did chip on measurements and then switch to aircraft measurements so I did nearly everything in my field, which makes it for me exciting. Yeah, and how do I become an editor. So James nicely presented several ways and so my, my way was to simply ask, I was interested in being an editor I saw before. I saw papers I saw reviews and editor decisions and then ACP started with all the open discussions and I asked only personal I wrote an email to I want to be part of it. This is for the time that I have maybe that I want to concentrate on because many points I have here on my list already presented by James and Rolf. But, um, yeah, what makes a good editor from the personal view so buried, she gave us some questions and here on my list is what's kids. Are these diet so um, and I think this is something quite important is. Yeah, the main thing is, you need to like, you need to enjoy writing and you need to be interested in writing good papers and not only writing but also on. Yeah, the publication skills also include to have good graphics. And so this is something that you can learn so it's not that you are born to publish. But, um, yeah, you can have lessons or you can buy books. When I was young younger than there were no no webinars and such things, but I bought, I bought books and I, I read. How can I do it best and I think this is the basics thing if you want to be an editor is to know how a good paper should look look like. And yeah, James already mentioned personal experience with publications. So if you never have written a paper then maybe it's too early to become an editor. So it's good to have a publication list and maybe a paper where you have already some citations. That means the paper was interesting enough to find readers. And also, I think a continuous practice of publication skills. I think, yeah, the most important I like to mention is is I like to mention again is the, the joy of writing and reading articles and the interest in seeing how the fields you're working in are developing. And, um, yeah, my personal most valuable tips. Maybe James and Rolf you might like to add something to that because this is personal. The first is for the open discussions. Yeah, if you are really in the field and then the editor should make the first decision by him or herself so that means, can the paper appear in a in the discussions. Yeah, this I discussed with when you personally would start at ACP. One of the starters of ACP. And I share his opinion. I discussed that with him when I was a fresh editor is in doubt for the accused. So that means if you are not sure if this is really a very good paper, but that this should be discussed. So let it in the open discussion and then let people decide if it's worth to go to ACP or not. So that means not only let the referees decide but everybody can put in a comment and then the discussion will be made but this should be really open. That doesn't mean that every paper will make it to the to ACPD into the discussion. So if it's really bad, then it should be sent back for revisions. And then the next thing which I find important already mentioned that a little bit is to have feedback with the referees at each stage of the revenue process that means to recognize their work. It's all voluntary. So they, yeah, our work is also voluntary but all referees and other editors they spend time. And this is worse to recognize. If you don't do that, they will be angry as you can imagine you also would probably be angry if you are ignored. And maybe we'll say I don't do that again for ACP and but the ACP is or every journey is dependent on the work voluntary work. And so be always yeah, feedback, be friendly and yeah, also friendly if there are discussions between referees and and authors, you need to mediate conflicts. So this is one of the more difficult parts. Fortunately, that doesn't happen too often that there are really debates so that the authors are not satisfied with with reviews which might happen or the other way round referees are not satisfied with the answers of the authors and the changes in the manuscript. So, yeah, I think for me these are the the tips that I want to give. And with that, I think I come to an end to let some time for questions and discussions. Thank you, Martina. Yeah, thanks all the speakers for their presentations today. I think the first question that pops into my mind actually when I was listening is we talked about what makes a good editor, but what makes a bad editor. Is there any pitfalls or things we should be avoiding. Martina, what what's good to do, but what is that that's bad to do as I said, we should aim to avoid. So I have one idea. If you, I think, if you have a difficult paper so pitfalls are always if you have a difficult paper where it's not sure. This paper will make it to from ACP D into ACP that means if it's finally accepted for publication. And then, yeah, if the reviewers reviews are major revisions and you should not go through two rounds of revision and then reject it. So this is something. It's always hard. Nobody likes to reject the paper. But if you feel that this is hard to repair then do this decision early, because you cannot give the the orders to our second rounds of revisions and then say, Oh, you know, too bad. I think after at least the second round. Then you need to accept it somehow. Yeah. So this is something in the beginning where I want to reject and then I let them do something and then, oh, what to do now. I could I could maybe kind of add to that in some of the. Again, doesn't happen very often, but there are occasions where as you say you don't want to just keep going for round and round of revisions. You know, because it's not fair on the authors if you think it's not likely to be accepted and it's not fair on the reviewers as well because it really tests their patients as well. There are occasions though where you think you genuinely think a paper should be publishable eventually. But if the authors don't bring it up to the standard necessary, then you still can't accept it. And that's where things can get. You know, we still have to take a firm line in that situation. We've not got grounds to rejection that can be a this is where we're talking about the diplomatic skills because you, I've had to say to some authors in the past it's just like look, it's not going to get published until it's ready. So, you know, you just got to put the effort into the next revision and make sure that it's it is publishable, you know. So, so basically, don't elongate the review process and diplomatic. Yeah, we have another question. And this one specifically for James. Yeah, it's from an ECS perspective. You said to do a lot of reviewing a foreign editor, but many ECS often aren't considered as reviewers. What is your tip to get this started? Or I suppose you could be free to ask how best can early career scientists for their experience to get into editing. No, that's, I suppose this one, that one is kind of a bit of a, yeah, there is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Particularly if you're active in in, if you're active in a well established field, then obviously if you're just starting out, then your name might not spring to mind when people are assigning papers to review. That's an interesting one because you, you, you, because you can't, you don't, there isn't really a process by which you can say, you know, hey, look, it's me. I'm willing to review. If an editor doesn't know you then it's all course done by reputation publication record or something. What can happen is, this happens quite often is, you know, if you say an editor, and this is not just true of ACP, true of all journals is that often what happens is if someone does get approached who is already kind of drowning in deadlines and he has too many other papers to review. So, you know, people like established scientists PIs and stuff they have the opportunity to refer on to co co workers. And I personally as an editor do genuinely appreciate it when, if I send it to someone who is established in a field and they've got no time to review it. I do say, if they do know a postdoc or form a PhD student who does, you know, I might not know as an editor, then I really do appreciate being put onto these, you know, new people. So, that is a way. Again, though, that is unfortunately within the gift of the established research and not the new career. The other one which is I think a feature that doesn't get used often enough I don't think, but you've got to be careful using is, we do have the facility for unsolicited comments within ACP. You know, you can put a short comment in there that's not it doesn't count as part of the. It's not a formal review that the authors are obliged to respond to. Well, if you're struggling to get noticed, and you know it's a discussion going on within your field that you think you can contribute meaningfully to, then I would kind of maybe consider whether there's something worth saying. And, you know, might get you noticed. And I suppose the other thing as well if you want to get lots of review invitations from any journal, it is a lot of time just getting published yourself, because that if you're looking for someone to review a paper. That's where you get these names from is so right who's published in this field before. Particularly if you papers are cited to get noticed then that's when the review invitation start coming in. So I suppose a publish one. And the second option would be to perhaps approach senior researchers and asked them to recommend you as a reviewer if they get asked anyone to offload it. And third also to engage within the application infrastructure that exists already. So, for example, moderation, for example, each user has moderator applications open, which includes ECS as well. Would that be considered when people apply to be an editor. I mean, it's a bit hard to generalize. I mean, I don't know if anyone. I mean, it's when appointing editors is very much done on a kind of case by case basis and a lot of it is kind of a more holistic kind of reputation kind of thing but certainly if you want to get noticed then yeah absolutely stuff like each of you I definitely recommend you know just for the sake of getting involved getting noticed getting input into the scientific discourse you know I mean I certainly recommend stuff like that. Perhaps I can ask you a question James because we just got stuck in the ACP meeting in Mainz. One issue was becoming an editor is also the idea is if you if you add in editors from underrepresented communities or countries could help in bringing in more submission and fostering submissions from regions of one example that was pointed out and the last meeting in Mainz was that we don't have many from many editors from the southern hemisphere not even from Australia let alone South America we have a few Brazilians but that's of course not covering the entire continent so if people are interested in becoming an editor or know about people that are coming from regions that are underrepresented in ACP that might also be an issue and perhaps you have a comment on that but at least I can make a statement that we have discussed the issue of editors also as a it's not the only way and it's not 100% one-to-one relation of course but it's also Yeah I now you mentioned that I'm actually thinking I possibly should have put a slide in about that because it is a very important issue it's something that executive in the senior you know as you know I've been for some of these conversations as well I mean Ultimately ACP is a global journal but we still do have a lot of over representation from Europe, North America and East Asia so yes I mean I completely agree with everything that you just said I would I mean we do have we have been trying to recruit a few editors particularly from the southern hemisphere you know and I think you know we are you know atmospheric science is a global research discipline and I would definitely encourage if we've got any editors that you know any kind of would be editors who are very interested in not just in I suppose kind of representing the research seen in these underrepresented areas then absolutely yes we would very much welcome editors from these regions and I think because this thing is is very important because I mean it's not just an ACP thing atmospheric science in general often get often gets accused of kind of focusing too much on these areas of the northern hemisphere where there has traditionally been a lot of this research and so on but the atmosphere is a very different place in a lot of these countries you know it needs researching you know and it needs people appreciate some of the more kind of like local more kind of local aspects of what's going on in these areas and I think you know this is something that I think as a journal we have a duty to represent. Perhaps I can ask you a question James because we just got stuck in the ACP meeting in Mainz. One issue was becoming an editor is also the idea is if you add in editors from underrepresented communities or countries could help in bringing in more submission and fostering submissions from regions of one example that was pointed out in the last meeting in Mainz was that we don't have many from many editors from the southern hemisphere not even from Australia let alone South America we have a few Brazilians but that's of course not covering the entire continent so if people are interested in becoming an editor or know about people that are coming from regions that are underrepresented in ACP that might also be an issue and perhaps you have a comment on that but at least I can make a statement that we have discussed the issue of editors also as it's not the only way and it's not 100% one-to-one relation of course. Yeah now you mentioned that I'm actually thinking I possibly should have put a slide in about that because it is a very important issue it's something that executive in the senior you know as you know I've been for some ground for some of these conversations as well I mean ultimately ACP is a global journal but we still do have a lot of over representation from Europe, North America and East Asia. So yes, I mean, I completely agree with everything that you just said I would, I mean we do have, we have been trying to recruit a few editors, particularly from the southern hemisphere, you know, and I think you know we are, you know atmospheric sciences a global research discipline, and I would definitely encourage if we've got any editors that you know any kind of would be editors who are very interested in not just in I suppose kind of representing the research seen in these underrepresented areas then absolutely yes, we would very much welcome any editors from these regions and I think because this thing is very important because I mean it's not just an ACP thing atmospheric science in general often get often gets accused of kind of focusing too much on these areas of the northern hemisphere where there has traditionally been a lot of this research and so on, but the atmosphere is a very different place in a lot of these countries, you know, it needs researching, you know, and it needs people appreciate some of the more kind of like local, more kind of local aspects of what's going on in these areas. And I think you know this is something that I think as a journal we have a duty to represent. I completely agree. Thanks. Thanks. More of a general question is so whole panel is how much time do you spend on editing in a normal work week. Perhaps world could you comment on that at all. Well, you do get these questions on this particular topic and on other topics so much time you spend on this or that. And to be honest, I don't really know it's very difficult to quantify I have to say. First of all, I'm not sure what a normal week is because then you have teaching obligations you have travel like last the day before yesterday we were in mines for ACP and so on. So it's a bit difficult. I think the, the, and it depends on how many papers you have, you have many papers you have accepted and again there will be an up and down some people will be some papers will be faster. Some people, some papers sorry, stay there for longer and then they come back more often. It's very hard to predict what I can say I think that this is more important perhaps than the actual number of hours what you should try and do as an editor is of course. Not to have papers especially the ones that you are editing as you're dealing with as an editor, not have these papers waiting too long for your editors decision whether it's go back to the reviewers whether it's except reject and all that, because if you think it is something important you should try and look at the paper and make a decision on the other hand if you're an author, you will sometimes wonder why is it taking so long. And of course the reason might be the editor has just other obligations he's on a field campaign or wherever on a in a meeting where he or she cannot do this editing beauty for a few days and then the paper is just waiting there. What I think is is more than the actual numbers on average is the obligation that you deal with things that are important to the authors. So sometimes you need to look at the your to do list at EGU or ACP and which is well organized so this is also very helpful I think you have a to do list you know that you have to deal with these papers, the decision is other reply is there by the authors and now you have to act as an editor. And sometimes this is coming in between other obligations or time consuming efforts and then know this time you have to devote your time to ACP and to do the editor job. And sometimes this is a, it's a difficult balance and I think this is more important than than kind of spending an average time. And it's also sometimes hurts more because now you have to really do this work and not perhaps do something else that you also would be very interested in reading this particular paper or work on your own paper and things like that know you have the duty you should do something for EGU so it's fluctuating. It depends a lot of how much workload you take on, but I think the the more challenge and challenging thing is that you have to address certain issues in a certain time frame. Thank you. Quickly running out of time but Martina, do you have something to add to that. I only want to add to two words comments that so to motivate potential editors that you can control that the workload. So, yeah, you should take six papers per year, at least if you do that, in most cases, the workload is not really high, I would say, only if you have really difficult papers which doesn't happen too often. So, you can, if you have a time where you are very busy then simply don't pick a paper. And if you have a time, which is more relaxed than pick two papers so you can control it and there. And you should do that. Don't pick papers if you know you are out on a field campaign or something like that. And you know you don't have time for the papers. And you can in the ACP system you can sign in times when you are really absent. Not able to do any editorial work. So, I think this, I like to add that because I think it's important you can control that it's you will be not completely overrode by the usual amount of work. Thank you. So, basically be aware of the time dependencies of the work you have but also realize you can control the quantity of that work as well. We are just running out of time. So, and I close the webinar now to thank all our speakers today for giving our time and knowledge to us and also thank for the attendees who came today. This webinar will be hosted on our YouTube channel within one week to keep it out for that. Thank you for attending. Bye-bye.