 In general, and I think this is very much related to all the questions dealt with in the discussion on open access, there's a huge issue about inequality among scholars and the question whether you are affiliated with a very powerful institution that has money or not. And in particular if you are a junior scholar because you need to be published and you need to be able to access the work of other scholars. So if articles are not open access then you can't access them when you are not a member of a powerful institution. And at the same time, if you want to be open access that means to be read and there is an article processing fee for your article to become open access. That's another problem because how can you afford to pay 2000 euros or 3000 euros for an article to be published? And actually I think this is outrageous because I might be on a salary if I'm lucky. Then I'm doing my work and then I'm writing my article and then I'm doing all the editing and everything. Most of it I do myself and I do language editing. I pay it from my own pocket and so on and so on. The editors of the journal work for free. They organize the peer review. The peer reviewers work for free. And then somebody is collecting so much money for the journal so I think that is outrageous. In particular if you are in a junior stage you can't escape this system because you need to read the articles, the relevant articles in your field and you need to publish in high-ranking journals. So what we really need is a kind of resolution where we kind of let the system implode. And another point I could imagine where, but this is really something also we need to learn more about as scholars. I could imagine where open access could work is this idea I have heard about that you can access kind of the research data which underlies the research. And here I'm talking from the perspective of a qualitative researcher, kind of anthropology is in between humanities and quantitative social science. We do qualitative stuff, but often we rely on quantitative stuff. For instance my field of in health there's a lot of quantitative stuff I need to pay attention to. So if I could read an article and in the way how I can access other articles through a PDF, if I could access statistics and stuff like that, I could imagine that that could help a lot. In particular to create a kind of interdisciplinary dialogue. Sometimes I could imagine that we need a bit more help here, kind of that it is translated to us from other disciplines. So that there could be an intermediary step where we can access the data, but where it is kind of prepared in a way that other disciplines understand it better. When it comes to sharing of original data among qualitative researchers, I doubt whether this will really happen. Because this is very idiosyncratic, very sensitive, there are huge ethical issues. Even right now where we save the research on our own computers and disks and so on and so on. So there's a long way to go. But in between there are so many products we have, kind of intermediary working products so to speak. And I could imagine if this is kind of stored in a safe way, then that could be useful. If I think about all the stuff people do work in historical archives or whatever. Or secondary analysis of interviews. Like for instance if you have interviewed a group of people and they are no longer alive or so. And you want to compare them with a cohort from today. And then you could compare the interviews. That would be fantastic if that would be possible. Thank you very much.