 process and publication. It's almost gatekeeping for good science. So what is your attitude in policy at GIE? Well we we do a lot with our peer reviewers. We always want to make sure that we have you know the best quality reviewers so we encourage all of our new reviewers to work through the GIE reviewer course and we track their progress through scores that we give them for each of their review and we've actually recently started a mentorship program for our new reviewers which we've really seen kind of helps them know what we're looking for what makes a good review and and we actually even have an award ceremony on annually for our reviewers just to show them our appreciation and to and to recognize their great work and and we understand that for an author receiving negative reviews or even rejections can be really difficult but we just encourage them to not take it personally and understand that journals such as GIE have really low acceptance rates and and the best thing you can do is look at the reviewers comments we want always want them to give positive constructive critiques and and just take those comments and see if that that can help them improve their manuscript and resubmit it elsewhere. So how do you go about preparing the material for reviewers? For the training material or the resources? How do you go about preparing that? We actually we do have a fantastic doctor who is in charge of our reviewer programs. He he it was his concept to really start this new reviewer program match great reviewers that have great track recorders with new reviewers who are just kind of starting it out and really want to get involved in the review process and and we run a lot of statistics I do quite a few reports tracking how well our reviewers are doing and really just seeing those who are giving the best quality reviews and and and as I said you know we want to make sure that we are honoring them. So in case of a peer review where say our book about three peer reviews and conflicting views about a paper and you need another opinion in that case would you look out and seek advice from another person who was in who works in the peer review capacity or do you have in-house a needy source or subject matter expert available who can help you make that decision? We actually would most likely in that case send it out for additional reviews just to make sure that we're being thorough if an associate editor is is not happy with the reviews they've received they can you know invite as many as they reviewers as they want. Traditionally we have about two reviewers for her paper but but it also all of our as I've mentioned previously we are associate editor looks at it our editor-in-chief looks at them even before we accept them we'll have you know our whole editorial team will get the opportunity to look at it to make sure that there's not something that's been overlooked so it's a really thorough process and we're certainly are not taking the job lightly reviewing these works so that's really good to know. So a decision on a paper is more or less a collective work. I think a lot of stress is put on peer reviewers but I think it's good to acknowledge what the editorial team does in making that decision because a lot of times if a paper is accepted or rejected we mostly think that the peer reviewer has made that decision but that group has made that decision. Yeah and it's it's not we we love to get great peer reviews because we want to have the best critique possible we want to know if there's any revision that needs to be made we want to know whether the content is sound but ultimately you know we have our team of associate editors and our editor-in-chief that really will look at the reviews in the paper and and make the the final call and whether or not we want to publish it.