 So, the review process here includes administrative review to ensure that the application is complete, feasibility review to ensure that the requested data are available. And we have the data and sample access committee review, which is an independent committee that provides scientific review and recommendations to the CELSA Executive Committee. And CELSA Executive Committee would have the final decision. The review outcomes are approved, include approved minor revision, which would provide the applicant seven days to resubmit, major revision 21 days to resubmit and not approved. Here is our data and sample access committee that currently we have the chair and 15 other members from different academic Canadian institutions as well as CELSA and CHR representatives. Okay, I will go over and brief what are the main reasons like why we send back the application and this is important for you because I mean, if we send back the application, definitely it will delay the process. And if I mean, you cannot board this, that will definitely help in approving more and more applications. So main reasons for minor revisions, usually writing delay summary in a language that is not suitable for the general public. So we send back the application so they can rewrite the summary and this is important because we post those summary on our website. So it's important to ensure that it is suitable for the general public. Second reason is selecting a cohort that does not include the data needed for the proposed project. So they, like I said before, like selecting the tracking cohort, for example, and the project depends on physical assessment, let's say, or whatever, but cohort won't, tracking cohort won't include this information. So we send it back to remove the tracking cohort. Selecting data modules are not described in their proposal. So yeah, like, including, can you data or COVID-19 selecting those in the data checklist, but there are no mention about those data in their proposal. So do we either, we send back, they either need to justify their request or they need to remove those data from the data checklist. Requesting images, although only images output data are needed and this is, we send back and it just, we tell them that it's, they're including the physical assessment module and they need to remove the images. So main reasons for major revisions are, and this is 21 days usually, research objectives are not clear and concise enough. The use of requested data is not adequately described and proposed methods are not clearly described. So we provide, we ask them to rewrite those. And we, for rejection, we do reject some of the applications, although few, but mainly due because requested data are not available at the time of submission or they're paler to provide the level of detail sufficient to assess the study visibility or once we send back for requested revisions, they don't apply those requested revisions. So we have to reject it.