 So, hello and welcome to E-9 monthly webinars. Today with us we have Dr Anna Avalkina from Praia Universität in Berlin, Germany, who will talk to us about the rising threat of paper mills, which is some new forms of misconduct and fraud. So, very welcome, Dr Avalkina. And without further ado, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I would like to thank NIO for invitation. And today I'm going to speak about paper mills, about what we know about paper mills, about what we don't know about paper mills and what is the threat of a paper mill. So now I would like to share my slides. So, I will speak and then we'll give the presentation and then there will be floor for questions. So, what is the, what we know about paper mills? What kind of misconduct it is? First of all, it is on authorship fraud. What we know about authorship fraud could be a gift authorship or a meter authorship, but in the case of the paper mill, money involved in the case of authorship fraud. So, there are broker companies that are paper mills that sell authorship slots in papers that have been written by other scholars or ghost writers, or some scholars offer a place in their paper. So, this is the core of the misconduct. But what also we know about paper mills that normally they are accompanied by other types of academic misconduct, by plagiarism or fabrication of data images, or falsification of data and images. So, here I present some examples of offers or companies paper mills that you can find online. Some of them are just Google translated in English. So, these companies, they have quarters in different countries of the world. And all of them offer some or offer authorship slots for sale, search for authors for publication, and so on. So, there could be just paper mills that work online. Or in other case, some paper mills, they offer their services via social media. And this is just a copy of an offer by one Indian paper mill. So, you can see there's just dozens of papers offered for proceedings of one publisher. And now the publisher investigates this case. And you can see that there are just six positions in the authorship lists and some of the slots have been sold already. And when we speak about the volume of the problem, so how many papers from paper mills can be found to die. So, what is really the problem? And when we speak about it, we have to take into consideration that there is always numerator and denominator to understand the share of paper mills, for example, in the literature. So, what we know about numerator and what we know about the denominator. So, actually, we don't know how many papers from paper mills are in the literature. There are thousands of documented cases by different slurfs or research integrity experts, maybe also by publishers, but much less papers have been retracted. So, it means that a lot of papers are not detected. So, just a part of that are documented, is documented. And the only part of what is documented was in reality retracted. Because publishers sometimes are not able to find misconduct or publishers can retract papers due to other reasons, not because of the paper mill, because it's very difficult to confirm the evidence of paper mill origin. And that is why many papers they are retracted because of violation of peer review, because of fabrication and so on. And sometimes it's very difficult to detect because we don't know the inner work of the paper mill and we can see only manipulation of peer review or plagiarism of applications or template similarities between papers. So, here we can see the figure that represents the number of retracted papers by year of publication or by the year of retraction. And you can see that there is a rise of paper mill papers published since 2017, but retractions, massive retraction start only in 2020. Look, for example, here, so this is just print screens of news about publishers retracting 500 papers originating from paper mills or 122 and we can see that publishers are absolutely different so since 2020 there are massive retractions of paper mill papers from academic literature. But I have to mention that we also don't know how many, in reality, how many papers from paper mills because there is a difficulty of detection. So journal, what journal can see, for example, a peer review fraud, I will talk about peer review fraud a bit later, how paper mills do this, or journals they can see common submission practices, for example, the identical email or identical letters, cover letters, for example, or journals they can see a request of the authorship changes after acceptance of the manuscript. But when papers, so actually journals they don't have, if editors are not aware of paper mills and how paper mills work, they are not able to detect some suspicious patterns or suspicious red flags. And when papers are published, so then the academic community can see other suspicious patterns of the papers from paper mills. For example, common structures and templates of papers in different journals, or plagiarism, or fabrication and falsification of data, or, for example, incorrect nucleated sequence regent. There was a study about that, so how paper mills they fabricate the data and use nucleated sequence regent. Or they manipulate citations, or since recently there are slurs or research integrity experts, including me who detect office published by paper mills. Or, for example, also paper mills can be detected by weird emails. These are just an example, because each paper mill has its own business model and its own patterns and, so to say, red flags. So these are the example and a particular paper mill can have other suspicious patterns. So when we speak about Nominator to Nominator, with what we have to compare the number of detected or not detected papers from paper mills. So should we compare with all published papers or we should compare with the papers that actually journals are able to detect as suspicious. Co-op together with STM, they made a study of paper mills last year. And so they look and they surveyed some publishers about the possibility of publishers to detect fraudulent and suspicious papers. So actually here on this figure, you can see that six publishers that they were able to detect identified 139 papers, just suspicious papers and they didn't publish them. But at the same time, they published 457 papers that later were found to be originating from paper mills. So the possibility or ability of journals and publishers to detect paper mills is not high. And the percentage of the share of suspicious papers submitted to journals of six publishers ranged from 2% to 46%. So some journals are actually flooded with submissions from paper mills. So when this actually problem appeared, if we look at Retraction Watch database, we can see that the first papers from paper mills date back to 2004, 2007, but increased number of fake papers can be traced since 2017. And these papers are mainly originated or associated with China. Then since 2019, there is increase in number of paper mill papers from other countries. Why this period? Because it's just my hypothesis or maybe also evidence as per what we can see how scholars published their papers. We can see that before 2019, many broker companies relied on predatory journals. And so scholars mainly from developing countries or those countries which integrate into international scientific community, they relied on publications and predatory journals that were indexed in Scopus or Web of Science or other international symptomatic databases. And this very time, in 2019 and 2020, Scopus and Web of Science started to exclude massively such journals, such predatory journals. And that is why the strategy to rely on predatory journals was not effective because any time the journal can be excluded, it means that the broker company can have a lot of losses, just money losses. And that's why they started to orient to reputable journals but with broader content. So it's possible to see this evidence how the broker companies, at least in some countries, for example, in close Soviet countries, they transformed their activity. So they transformed their activity, and very oriented from predatory journals to reputable journals, but offering authorship for sale. As for the disciplines, so here also used retraction watch database to see where, in what kind of disciplines, the papers were retracted, and the biology and macri-biology, these disciplines dominate. So among others, computer sciences or medicine and just a bit of humanities and physics and engineering. But we should interpret this figure with caution because there are thousands of papers documented that they originate from paper mills but they are not retracted. And also we should interpret with caution the dominant affiliation of Chinese scholars because if you look at retraction watch database, 90% of scholars with retracted papers are affiliated with Chinese institutions. We know that in China there are a lot of paper mills mainly because of a pressure of publication and reward system when the first author gets all financial rewards. And also we know that in some hospitals, medical hospitals in China, their promotion is connected with publications in international journals. So this kind of publication pressure had an impact on fraudulent behavior or suspicious behavior of Chinese scholars. But also we know that there are paper mills working in absolutely different countries, in Eastern Europe, in post-Soviet countries, in Iran, in Middle East and in Southeast Asia. But unfortunately, the situation of nowadays is so that these documented cases are not still retracted. So now I would like to speak about the author's perspective. So why authors require such fraudulent services by paper mills? One of the most important explanation is publish and perish in many developing countries. So many countries, for example, like post-Soviet countries, they borrowed this standardization of evaluation of a scientific output, like publications in international journals, Syntax, Tenscopes and the World of Science. And that is why they are pressed to publish because of the contracts, they are pressed to publish in international journals. Also in many countries, the promotion is linked to publications as in the case in China or also in the case of other countries, also post-Soviet countries. In some countries there is a requirement to publish papers in international journals before the defense of PhD thesis. Many rich countries, for example, with oil extraction countries, like in Middle East, they offer a financial bonus for publications. And this is kind of a motivation to publish more. Also it could be a contract requirement or as we can see in many papers that are originating from paper mills, they have acknowledgement of grant funding. It means that actually scholars use grant money and they publish just, they pay to paper mills and they pay to paper mills and they publish dishonest papers using budget grant money. And now I would like to speak about several cases of paper mills of what actually my work was to detect some fraudulent papers. And I would like to speak about two cases. The first one is the paper mill, a broker company that I call Tano Pro. This weird title is linked to the email domain that this paper mill used to submit papers to reputable journals. So this is the Google translation of the page of this paper mill. I was able to detect it in the company that offers these services and they offer a writing of papers and they guarantee publication. And the peculiar feature of this paper mill is that they submit papers with weird domains. And they published more than 1,000 papers since 2019. So they actually in 2019 they started this activity. So I collect all these papers in the spreadsheet. So this is the pre-screen. And there are some examples of weird email domains that this paper mill uses to submit papers. For example, this is the last example. They use different clusters. There are more than 40 email domains that were detected. And you can see some even weird country domains. So there are scholars from Kazakhstan and they use the domain from Belgium or from Netherlands or from Germany. So the countries even don't correspond. Sometimes these domains, they look like university. For example, Polytechnica or something like that. And knowing this bottom of weird email domains it gave possibility to detect actually all papers that were submitted with these domains. Or another example that one scholar used this paper mill several times and each time this scholar had a different email. You can see with different some weird numbers and weird countries that didn't correspond to his affiliation. So he did it for three years. For sure it's a red flag for publishers to investigate. But unfortunately these weird email domains and emails they are not enough to retract the paper and to concede the papers fraudulent. And what was the next was to understand if in reality all these papers fraudulent or not. And together with the professor in psychology of Oxford Dorothy Bishop, we scrutinized six papers in the Journal of Community Psychology. Why these papers? Because this journal supports open peer review. And all peer reviews can be openly accessed in Publons. Now it's part of Clarivite. And we found just looking, Dorothy Bishop, she looked at the content of the papers because I don't understand anything in psychology. And if the papers are good or not. And we found serious problems. So Dorothy Bishop found that these papers are low quality papers. And then we found some other serious flows in these papers like citations to predatory journals, citations to suspicious journals where fake identities of peer reviewers were included in the editor board. I'll show you the example later. Also we found the violation of peer review because there were superficial comments like please change keywords or improve conclusions or correct typos so they were not serious peer reviews. And what is more interesting that these peer reviews were submitted on the same day quite in all the papers. And this is then later we found that this statistically impossible because we checked other peer reviews because maybe this journal requires immediate peer review. But in all other papers which we randomly selected, we didn't find this kind of difference of one day or submission on the same day. And we also found that the identities of peer reviewers were fake. So this is just a print screen of the Puglons page. No, it's a part of Chloe Wade, but I did print screen when it was Puglons. So you can see that two reviewer reports for one paper were submitted on the same day. And that was the case for quite all other papers. Or this is an example of peer review. So you can see just most of the references are too old, please refresh the literature. So just not deep, real peer review. And also we have the name of reviewer, Eric Letmire. We could click on this name and to see the profile. And the profile is empty. So there are no publications in Web of Science. There are no certations, but there are three verified peer reviews for this person. And then we also found that this person is an editor in one scientific journal. And then it was found that quite all people, I mean it is a real journal, but quite all people in this journal are fake. So we can't find any publications or affiliation or just in this university of West Bahamia, there is no scholar like Eric Letmire. And now it was possible to detect more than 50 identities like this. Or there is another case of paper mills. So I wanted to add that we together with Dorothy Bishop wrote a proof print about this case. We submitted to the Journal of Community Psychology to see how it's possible that such a reputable journal, it is a reputable journal of psychology, could publish such papers of low quality with weird emails with fake peer review. And we thought that maybe an editor doesn't read actually the papers. And we submitted our print about the paper mill and about these six papers that we detected to be fraudulent. Our paper was rejected with a final decision totally not fatally flowed. And after that, while we started an investigation and about 10 days ago these papers, all six papers have been retracted. But it gives us the possibility, this investigation of these six papers gives us a possibility to think and hypothesize that other papers from Tanupro are also fraudulent. And this is another case of a paper mill. This is a paper mill that is called International Publisher. It is registered and it has a headquarter in Moscow. It's situated in the business skyscraper in the center of Moscow. And it operates since 2018 and offers the authorship slots for sale. And the price of authorship slots varies from 180 to 5000 euros. And the price depends on the journal. It's imperfect and also depends on the position of the author. So to have the first position costs more. And I analyzed 2000 offers from this paper mill published online. So this is just an example of an offer. A paper mill is Google translated. And this offer gives enough information to detect the real paper. So we can see the title, so the topic of the paper. And one paper with quite identical topic was published. We have the year of publication and it matches. So we have just five authorship slots for sale. And in the end, the paper has five quarters. And also the beginning, this paper mill published the country of the journal. And it also matches. So it gives enough information and confirmation of a paper mill origin. So now I also collect all findings in the spreadsheet. So this is the print screen of this spreadsheet. I have detected up to date 460 papers. They were published in 152 journals. Authentic journals and three hijacked journals. Hijacked journals represent just criminal websites or scam websites that mimic original journals. They have the same title, the same ISSN, and they collect money for publication without peer review. So it's kind of a journal scam. So this paper mill, it sold during two and a half years, or during three years, more than 6,000 authorship supports. And in all the papers that I have detected that originate from paper mills, these papers are written by 800, more than 800 scholars from at least 39 countries and they represent more than 300 universities around the world. So the majority at the beginning of this paper mill was oriented to Russia and to Russian scholars, but later it's reoriented to post-Soviet space and also to China. And nowadays they have a website in three languages in Russian, English, and also Chinese. And even if it is situated in Russia, there is evidence that after the war, after 24th of February, this paper mill works and it's possible to see, it was possible to see that they sold a lot of authorship slots to scholars from other countries in the world. So they reorient now to outside Russia for this fraudulent and offer these fraudulent services. All this is another example. So we can detect some fabrication of data in the papers that were published and that originate from this paper mill. This is an offer. I left it in Russian, but it's possible to see, just the number is 300 children aged from four to five years. And also the authors had to insert the city of the city where actually the study took place and at the end it was Wuhan in China. And so the abstracts match. And also it's possible to see that the first course is from China and in the paper at the end there is also a scholar affiliated with China. And this is an example of alfabrication. Or there is another example of fabrication. So on your left this is an abstract from a real paper. There are numbers in the abstract and they absolutely identical to the numbers that I found in one Russian paper in the Russian language. So the problem is that the paper on your left that was published by a scholar affiliated with one famous American university and it studies ashes in Detroit. And the data were taken from a paper that studied ashes just lives full in Orymbuk in Russia. So how it was possible that paper mills, for example the paper mill international publisher, they succeeded to publish so many papers because they used the strategy of individual submissions, submissions to individual journals. For example, they submitted just one paper, they published one paper in 98 journals. It means that these journals were not able to detect some similarities between submissions. As many, there are many recommendations to journals nowadays to see the similarities between templates, mission process and so on. So this paper used absolutely different strategy. One just strategy, one paper, one journal. Also what they did, they used the strategy of suspicious collaborations with editors of the journal. And this button was, it was possible to detect in four MDPI journals where the scholar some these identities, these entities, one, two, three, they were affiliated with one university in Eastern Europe, part of European Union. And they were editors or academic editors of papers or they were co-authors of papers originated from paper mill. One could think that it's a coincidence, but unfortunately not because many authors they clearly stated that one place is reserved for an editor from this particular country. Or the paper mill also used special issues as many people, many paper mills use. It's a very common practice. They just publish a special issues with a lot of papers from paper mills. And so one offer just says that there is a special issue with thin papers and it was possible to detect nine papers from 10. As for the publishers, you can see here that, well, quite all publishers are involved. I mean, reputable, but also just not so well known publishers. Some also predatory journals because these paper mills started with predatory journals in 2018, but then they changed their strategy and they just publish their papers now in mostly reputable publishers. Also what it was possible to detect that these papers, they do have suspicious collaborations in co-authorship list. I give you an example of a paper on just paper about polymer film coating. It's something about chemical engineering. This course is by two courses, one affiliated with medical university and second one with financial university. And it's inconsistency between the research interests and affiliations of the authors. So in this collaboration of patents, it's possible that actually courses that they are not familiar with each other, so they don't know each other. They don't have common research interests like in this very case. They are affiliated with, so there is a diversity of affiliations per paper and it's quite impossible. For example, in many papers from Iranian paper mills, it's possible to see them with bare eyes because there are eight courses and all represent absolutely different countries. And it's rather suspicious. It's not misconduct, but it's very suspicious. And it's like a red flag to pay attention to such a paper. So also this authors, they specialize in different disciplines, also like in this case, and they might not specialize in the topic of the paper. Also, this paper mill has typical number of courses, like from three to five, and so how many courseships lots they actually sold. And there is a total alphabetical disorder in the courseship list because in many disciplines there is alphabetical order of how you place authors, like in economics or in mathematics. And here in this sample, just the majority, not just majority, more than 85% of papers, they did have alphabetical disorder. This paper mill was investigated both by some American scholars and also by me. So Retraction Watch published an investigation about this paper mill, and I published a print. And the paper mill, well, what can be the reaction of a paper mill? They can close their operations, a closed website, but they started to defend themselves. So this paper mill published an archive on their website. So here you can see archive, it's in Russian, but it's archive form 2018, 19, 2021. They published about 100,000 papers, mainly written by Russian scholars. These papers are legitimate papers by legitimate scholars. And unfortunately, some international scholars started to identify these papers and publish comments on paper about these papers. Luckily it was possible to stop this activity, but anyway, it means that paper mills, they don't stop the activity. They adapt, they defend, they even attack. And this is a real threat for academic community. And so in my conclusions, I would like to say that actually the current system of paper mill detection should be regularly monitored and approved because each paper mill has its own peculiar features and potents and publishers are not aware of them. And so they have to take into consideration that paper mills, they adapt or some new paper mills appear. A lot of paper mills are still not discovered. We don't know anything about paper mills in Latin America or in Africa because nobody actually discovers it because many paper mills they are discovered by independent slurs, research integrity experts. And this is absolutely pro bono work. So they are not paid, even they receive threats, lawsuits and so on. Also, what is important to say that transparency is not working because the activity of paper mills was described and analysed by many journals like Science Nature, by Retraction Watch, there are numerous academic papers and blog posts, but paper mills, they do change the strategy but paper mills, they don't disappear. Also, what is the challenge is journals reaction because well, in my personal experience, also in experience of some other slurs and research integrity experts, well, journals, they don't respond, they don't investigate or they don't find just obvious academic misconduct. So some of them, well, they do respond and don't investigate but the percentage of what was retracted from what was discovered is a big difference. And today, there are many instruments to fight paper mills. They refer to symptoms like how to detect, we look at weird emails, we look at templates, we look at, we detect offers. So we, this work is intended to clean academic literature but all these instruments, they refer to symptoms but not the cause. The main cause is publication pressure for scholars in many countries that force them to buy these authorship slots and papers. So thank you very much for your attention. If you have questions, I will be happy to reply. What an amazing talk. Thank you so much, Anna, for this really insightful and what the work you are doing. I'm really grateful that you put so much effort into this because this is so important. This is so disruptive to science and one more science that actually we must change the system somehow because that, as you said, that is the major problem. All this culture of publisher, parish. We have some discussion here in the chat from a co-editor who says that he's getting at least one submission a day from the tana.pro paper mill. I think the main same reviewers in your case study and they would like to send a strong message in hopes of reducing that number. However, we don't know what the best approaches they say and we're also afraid of legal ramifications. For instance, when we send a reject withdrawal to this suspicious email, will the authors get the message? Should we consider finding authors' institutional email addresses? I assumed it would be a bad idea to contact scientific applications directly as much as we'd like to tell them to stop. So do you have any suggestions here? Well, in my experience with these six papers from Journal of Community Psychology, Wale, in their retraction notice, mentioned that they contact authors using their corresponding authors using these weird emails. So what is the probability that the author actually reads it? No. I even think that the paper mill itself doesn't read them because if you think there are at least 1,100 papers with five, for example, with five authors and all of them, they do have an email. They have 5,000 emails in their database. For sure, even one company doesn't have any possibility to check these emails. I mean, so my answer to your question, if you contact this company directly or your contact using these emails, it doesn't mean that it will be stopped because nobody reads it. So how to do it? I think this is a question for discussion what can be done in this matter. I don't have an answer how it can be stopped. So I think it can be only stopped with more retraction from this paper mill. This is the only thing that I can say. But I would like also to thank editor for this information about this paper mills and about the comment. And if you know some other emails because you can see these submissions, if you know these emails, please let me know because I can also put it in the database that can be used by its open database. It can be accessed openly. And so it's helpful for editors to see that these emails are weird and that they shouldn't actually look at the papers from this paper mill. So what do you think might be good ideas how to work on raising an awareness of this problem? Education for editors, education for early career researchers, perhaps as well to spot these red flags. What more can we do? So first of all, what we can do, also just in my experience, looking at this number of papers, fraudulent papers, I found very helpful to have open peer review. This is very helpful because then you can see what was really peer reviewed or what was not peer reviewed. The one data analyst from Sage Publications, he analyzed the texts of peer reviews of all journals in Sage Publications and he found clusters of identical peer reviews. And the main hypothesis is that these texts are associated with paper mills because so many peer reviews, just dozens of peer reviews with identical text. By the way, in the case of Journal of Community Psychology, all of them, the texts were similar. I mean, also with some identical phrases. So open peer review is very helpful. Also, many journals they offer to suggest some peer reviewers. And this is the case to use by paper mills because, for example, Tano Pro is for what I know, they send a paper and they offer three, four editors who can review the paper. And some journals they continue to do this practice. And this is the way how paper mills been traded to Journal. So maybe it's more work for editors, for sure, to search for peer reviews, but this is a gate for paper mills. And then also what can be done that, I don't know, maybe just more retractions are helpful. In this case, paper mills won't publish or won't meet these papers anymore or they change their strategy. And for sure about the education of editors, yes, it's very important because many editors, well, they shouldn't know actually, they should know their science. They are disciplined. They shouldn't be aware of misconduct. Maybe they are not aware that it exists somewhere. And yes, the education could be helpful for editors to be able to support these such problems. But also it's mostly the problem of the journals, not of big publishers because big publishers, they have some software that checks all submitted many scripts for plagiarism for some other red flags of the papers. But many university journals, reputable journals of very high quality, they are majority thread for paper mills. I was about to ask about AI, but Rita put the answer, the question in the chat before. So how do you see AI tools being used by paper mill companies and what's your views on the additional challenges it poses to journal editors, how to tackle this? Because now if we had these peer review mills, basically now AI is going to make it even worse because it will be harder to spot the similarity between these peer reviews for instance. So there are cases where when paper mills used AI-generated papers, like by Seigen or by Methgen, and there are hundreds of papers like that. And there is a study by Guillaume Cabanac and Cyrille Laber, they are computer scientists, and they wrote a script how to detect such papers written by Seigen. And Guillaume Cabanac, he works now at automatic screener of problematic papers. So there are red flags, like for example, like Seigen generated papers, or there are tortured phrases because many paper mills, what they do, they take the text, maybe just somebody's text. And in order to change, to rewrite it, they use automatic synonyms. And the result, there are absolutely weird phrases in the text. And so Guillaume Cabanac with Cyrille Laber and Alexander Magasinov, they wrote a script to detect these torture phrases and the academic community contributes to find these weird phrases. So there are hundreds of such phrases and thousands of papers detected. As for your question, then the chargeability is a big threat. And there are two consequences for this. First of all, it will blow the prices of paper mills and of this authorship slot because paper mills, many paper mills, they use ghost writers, I mean real scholars who do this job for money. Or the second result or second consequence could be that the scholars themselves, they would use chargeability without just applying to a paper mill. But this is a big challenge for sure. So nowadays there are no tools for the text. So open this software, it offers some script to check the text, but it says that the probability of the result is not high. I mean it could be not a correct result. So this is a big challenge for all scientific industry. For all scientific industry. Yes, for both research and in education with students and researchers, maybe the only good thing might be that it can lower the prices for some people. It will kill some of these industries perhaps. Like a good thing in a really bad situation. Yeah, it could be. Yes, thank you so much. Oh, there is one more question. Do you think AI and AI generated papers might cause a shift away from scientific paper based publishing towards a more wholesome publishing process? Well, I think that actually in the future some legitimate papers will be written by AI. There are also already books written by artificial intelligence. And I guess that in 20 years maybe literature review will be legitimately written by artificial intelligence. This is like a process that 20 years ago nobody used econometric software to make models. And we never cite even the econometric, the software, the papers that actually this software does, all the calculations does all the job. So maybe this is the trend. And well, it could be normal. But I don't think that the artificial intelligence is the greatest threat because the system of research evaluation that many universities and many countries have that is based on centimetric, metric-based evaluation on number of papers or on number of citations. This is the big threat for academic publishers because it has, well, all of you know how many bad consequences it has for also academia, this competition and this publishing to perish. And this system absolutely should be changed. We have one more question in the chat. Can this fraudulent activity be interpreted as an attack on the credibility of Western academia? Well, it's not only just on Western credibility and not only on Western academia because, well, academia is just academia. I think science is international but on the science itself for sure. Definitely yes. So, yeah, you will have some context from some editors in the chat that would like to share the knowledge with you. And yes, I will send you a link in a few minutes in the chat about this nature article. It's called Storch and Phrases Giveaway Fabricated Research Papers that I was trying to send but it's only available for my university, sorry. And so there is some things happening in the chat. We are trying to put some information in the chat as well. But anyway, I... Maybe I also can share the link of Tanu pro papers if there are editors who can look at these weird emails and can be aware of this. So, I did it. Yeah. So, I would like to... Thank you so much. I agree with comments in the chat that this was fascinating. It really is fascinating. You're doing an amazing job, really. And we are so grateful, actually, that you're pointing this out because I don't think that many researchers are aware of these things happening. So, this really is very important work. So, thank you so much both for being here and for the work. I wish you the best. Thank you. And keep up the good work. Thank you very much. And thank you for being a part of this webinar. Yes. Thank you. Bye.