 Okay. Let me maybe start. Thanks, Glenn. And Sarah and me decided that I will be speaking first. So hello, everyone. My name is Alexander Beresko. Hope you hear me well. Glenn, could you please tell me that if you can hear me good? You're just fine. Perfect. Thanks. Thanks a lot. My name is Alexander Beresko, and I am an associated professor at Leuphold Technical National University, Ukraine. And also, I'm a general board member at URODOC, as well as I'm now coordinator of URODOC Open Science Ambassadors cohort. Let me share my screen. Okay. Hope you can see it. Yeah. And today we will be talking about how early career researchers can boost open science on the example of URODOC. URODOC is the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. And it's an international federation of 28 national organizations all over Europe from 26 countries. So it's a big organization with a bigger presentation from many European research communities and communities of early career researchers. Yeah. So as today, we are in the middle of Open Access Week 2020. And the topic of this year's Open Access Week is open with purpose, taking action to build structural equity and inclusion. So let us discuss how open science can advance equity and how we can all contribute. So open science has been recognized as one of the main parts of European vision quite a long time. And now Europe aims at open science, aims at openness and takes many efforts to get there. So what does it mean? FOSTA project, which is one of the educational projects on open science defines open science as the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute. So open science is not a new science. It's just more open and transparent way to practice science, actually, yes. And open science supports validation and reproducibility of research, reduces academic cases of academic misconduct and promotes academic integrity and helps to maximize the impact of research by involving many stakeholders. Yes. So if you look at the open science roadmap, it's everything but tiny. It's really huge. And if you look at this, you can see that there are different branches. So open science is an umbrella term, which contains many different subsections, like open access, open data, open and fair data, open reproducible research, open science evaluation, including open peer review, which is very important, open science policies and open science tools. There are four main pillars of open science, open data, open code, I mean, programming code, yes, source code, open papers, which is open access and open peer reviews. It's important that researchers practice open science on all stages of research workflow from the very beginning till the final stages. So from the conceptualization to publishing, yes. And if we examine it a little more, so for instance, during the planning stage, it's a good practice to share your ideas on social media to get early feedback and involve as much stakeholders as possible, like non-academic partners, industrial partners. What is also important, it's important to check if there are any existing data sets, which can be reused because no one wants to reinvent the wheel, of course, yes, and building upon others work is very important. Many people are afraid of sharing ideas early because they are afraid of being scooped, yeah. And the very good remedy to this is the prior registration of your research. So before you even start doing some experiments, doing some serious work, you can prior register your research and so everyone knows what you are doing. Okay, during the active stage, actually the research, it's good to share your methodology and refindings with preprints. Preprints are non-unpreviewed papers, which have some restrictions, of course, but what they are good at, they are good at sharing your ideas and results very quickly. I will get back to this later on. Okay, also prior register in your results and also which is very important. Many researchers find it very useful to involve citizen science into their projects. There are several websites like Zooniverse where you can involve general public, even non-professionals and people from other fields to help you with your research. And of course, final stage, which is maybe crucial one for open access. Of course, it's important to publish your research in open access and sending your data to open repositories. And it's also important to add special metadata to your work and link it to your profile with ORCID and use DOIs for identification. One small thing which can be very useful for you is using so-called lay summary. So, summary of your research for non-experts. This can be journalists, media people, this can be researchers from other fields. And something that's very helpful because journalists can find your research and you can be a superstar in the next morning. Okay, so it all sounds like extra work. Right, but now we are approaching the good effects of open science, which are worth fighting for. So, open science and open access allow us, they give us many important advantages. Let's start from the very egoistic, personal level. So, people who publish in open access, who practice open science, are much more visible. So, your chances to get noticed, to get cited, increase dramatically. Yes. Also, other people can use your data if you share it and build upon your work and your data can also be cited. Your data, your source code, your research can, as I already said, media can take it and you can become an influencer. So, your vision and your personality will be more recognizable and you will have much influence on society in general. What is also important, and now we are slowly getting to the equity sink, researchers from poor countries, from developing countries can view your work. I am from Ukraine and I remember times when open access was one of the few options to get the papers from your field, if you are working in a specific field especially. So, it's really very good for science in general in the world. And of course, nowadays, Europe boosts open science on all levels and if you want to be successful, if you want your research ideas to be founded, if you want to get money for your research, very simple. You need to know how to work in open style, let's say. So, many important international organizations recognize open science as a crucial thing nowadays. And for instance, UNESCO states as a quotation that open science can be a true game changer in interconnecting science, technology, innovation and society. And for this equal opportunities for all, scientists, policymakers and citizens have to be promoted. If we go to UNESCO's again principles of open science, which they published not long ago, three important priorities are equity and fairness, diversity and inclusiveness. They are promoting equity among researchers from developed and developing countries equal access to scientific knowledge. They are embracing a diversity of practices, workflows, languages, which is important, yes. And engaging scientific community as a whole, as well as wider public and other stakeholders. In short, for me, open science almost equals equality because if something is open, you don't have paywalls, you don't have restrictions. And in this case, you can involve many people and everyone is invited. Important thing to mention, we are now living in very strange times and the pandemic has changed many things. But open science is, many people think that open science is critical to combating COVID-19. And real time sharing, open sharing of research publications, research data is very important to boost academic collaboration in order to focus on this fight, global fight against the corona. So every crazy crisis, it might be a bad thing, but it's also an opportunity and nature recognizes the COVID-19 crisis as it underlines that how fast and open science can be when scholars are using foreign servers to share preprints on COVID, on many important public servers, the rate of collaboration increases dramatically. So COVID just showed us how collaborative and open this process of scientific publication and evaluation can be. But what is important to mention is that we still have to learn how to deal with unperviewed knowledge because it's very important that we can only rely on peer reviewed knowledge and peer reviewed papers. So we still have to understand that preprints are an amazing thing, but we still have to recognize and understand the differences. There is a very good preprint again called open science saves lives lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, which I recommend, because in this preprint there are the research workflow is analyzed and the most important threats to it are discussed. Okay, so now we are finally getting to the main question of my presentation. How can early career research boost open science? And Euridoc has an answer to this question, and this answer is called Euridoc open science ambassadors. Okay, you know, I really like this picture. It's from 16th century by Hans Holbein, the younger is called ambassadors. So this is very important people who have some rich luxury outfits of the time. So what is an ambassador? Ambassador is a person who is promoting some idea or organization. Yeah. And in Euridoc, we have a group of people who promote open science. It's not something completely new. Very similar things already exist. For instance, Center for Open Science, it's in the United States, they have their own open science ambassadors worldwide. PhD, Max Planck, they have open access ambassadors. Plan S, which you probably know we heard about, have their own ambassadors and Derek O'Neill, which is the previous president of Euridoc is one of the ambassadors. But do we need another cohort? Yes, I think we do. There is an important popular chart called the Division of Innovations Curve, according to Everett Rogers, and there is a so-called chasm. So if some new thing, which is important, has to jump over this chasm to become really popular. And in my opinion, we really need to take effort to help open science jump over this chasm and we need to promote it whenever possible. And open science ambassador is a good instrument for this. Yeah. Okay. So what is open science ambassador? Actually, it's a training course, created by Garrett O'Neill and Evo Gregorov to train researchers in key practices of open science. So in order to become an ambassador, you have to pass this course. And also you have to pass the course at four-step project. And after that, when you pass the exam, you are one of the Euridoc open science ambassadors. And okay, let me show you the map of Euridoc once again. And after that, I will show you the map of current ambassadors distribution. So we have, at the moment, you have 24 ambassadors in 18 European countries, which is a distributed network of action from Ireland to Azerbaijan. It's really very distributed. And my vision of our network is an active network of action. So we have to do things together and also locally in our together internationally and locally on local, national, national, local and institutional levels. So what open science ambassadors actually do? Random three tweets from our community, one blog post from Anna Slavitz, me presenting something at Ukrainian University and another tweet, an ethical tweet from our ambassador, Yevak Natkova. So let me start from international level first. And let me just highlight three important results of previous year of our activity. So first important result is Euridoc Surrey on Publishing in Open Science, which was, it was all European level Surrey, which we created for the general European researchers community, but it was tailored specifically for Open Research Europe project. The Open Research Europe is Open Access Publishing Platform, European wide, which was commissioned by European Commission. And it will be launched early in 2021. And Euridoc is an expert partner is this huge important European project and Euridoc ambassadors were in the core of all these actions. You can learn more about the project following the QR code. Second important thing is Euridoc collaboration with open clouds. For instance, one of the ambassadors is collaborating with San Open Lab. And we, Euridoc is distributing vouchers from free cloud services to researchers. And so far, I guess that 24 early career researchers who are working on COVID-19 topics have been awarded vouchers for free usage of open research clouds infrastructures. And third important result is Erasmus Plus project, which was awarded to a nice consortium and which was shaped with the help of Open Science ambassadors and our friends from France, Belgium and Ukraine now working on this big project, which will start on 15th of January, 2021. And there is a huge opportunity to increase level of open science and promote awareness in Ukraine. So these are results of international level. And to be honest, there are many, many results on local and institutional levels. I just suggest that you visit Euridoc website and see our yesterday's short interview with Anna Slavitz, who is Euridoc Open Science ambassador for Slovenia. And this interview will be followed by other similar interviews from other ambassadors. And you will quickly understand what we do and what and how we are preaching. So speaking at events, online events at the moment, but still, applying for grants together, advocating for open science at national level. For instance, Ukraine has a member of Euridoc in Ukraine, its national association, its young scientist council at the Ministry of Science and Education, and they are advocating for open science on the national level. And the situation is similar in many other countries. Please follow the QR code to learn more about actions in Slovenia. So if you are interested, please visit our website. You can follow this link or use this QR code. And you can learn more about the course and learn more about the current cohort. And maybe you are also interested in joining us. What is important? You don't have to be a member of Euridoc administration to become Euridoc ambassador. You just need to pass the course so we are sure that you know what you are talking about. And also, you need to have passion for this and ability and will to change something on your local level, at least. So again, if you are interested, please follow this link and fill in the Google form. And I will get back to you shortly. The current cohort of ambassadors will end its action soon. And we will soon be recruiting the new cohort. We plan to release the information on the last day of this open access week. So maybe Sunday Monday, you can check our website. And if you are interested, again, join us. So thanks a lot for listening. I hope you will have some questions for me. And if you have some questions after the presentation, please drop me a line on email or let's communicate on other messengers. Let me maybe check if there are any questions. Okay. I don't see many questions at the moment. I don't see any questions at the moment, to be honest. But maybe you will have some after our presentation. Yes. Okay. Just a practical question. Where can I find the link for the form? One moment. Here you are. Let me just, yeah, here it is. So as far as I understand, our organizers of the webinar will share my presentation after the webinar. But you can do it now. You can follow this link or just scan the code and fill in. You can copy paste it in the chat as well. That's a good, that's okay. You can follow it directly. Okay, I will try to. It's Q&A, right? Oh, it's another. You can just put it in the chat box. That's a, okay. It's just for the people here and they can directly follow. Okay. Yeah. I will write everyone so don't be shy. Don't lose this opportunity to take action. Okay. Any other questions, please? Then thanks again. And maybe I can invite our second speaker, Sara Pili. Yeah. Thank you, Alec. I will ask you to share my presentation. Thanks. Okay. Please tell me when I have control. Okay. So hello, everybody. I'm really happy to be able to talk with you today about equity and inclusion, especially since I am a PhD candidate in history of contemporary China. But I'm also the co-coordinator of your dark equality working group. And I'm not sure that I can control. I'm sorry. Is it working, Sara? It's not working, I think. Do you have the... Yeah, I got it. I got it. Yes. I'm really sorry, but I have a slow computer. So what is the equality working group? Alec already explained to you what Erudok is. And within our association, we have a working group that was built to support early career researchers that deal with difficulties related to diversity and exclusion. And last term, I started coordinating this working group and we focused on especially gender, sexual orientation and disabilities as sources of discrimination, especially because in our working group, we just engage people from disadvantaged categories. And so we tried to speak up these particular situations. But then we just widen our scope further, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, since we got a lot of new issues about equity and inclusion. So our strategy is built on these four keywords. So the first aim is to raise awareness on the equity and inclusion issue, because it's very important to see the problem to solve it at the same. And to do this, we try to engage as much early career researchers as we can, especially because each situation is different. It is important to have self-representation for speaking out real problems and proposing concrete solutions. So the main objective, of course, is to advocate for concrete changes that can help people to feel included in a scientific community and to post their possibilities to have a good career development. And to do this, we cooperate with stakeholders, partners, and other associations that have similar aims. And this is extremely important in this topic, because equity and inclusion is not something that we can tackle alone, but we must do it together. So I will try to explain a bit why we built on this strategy and to share some experience. So the first thing we need to remember is that inequality and exclusion are the results of the interaction of more than one factor and the social environment. So it's not something that it's given, but it's something that we, as members of the social environment we live in, can change actively in our everyday life. So I'm very proud of this picture, because if you're not understanding how these factors are linked, I was able to represent the problem. So the point is that even if some of these factors of sources of inequality are more likely to occur together, it's not really easy to understand how each people is affected by gender ethnicity or disability. And I would like to say that some disabilities are invisible, so don't take anything for granted in this domain. So it is extremely important to design solutions that are able to tackle with more factor at the time, and this is what we call an intersectional approach to discrimination. Another important thing is that inequality is embedded in organizations. So there is not one community in the world where inequality doesn't exist. It's everywhere. And I'm going to build this part of the presentation on John Acker's article on gender and organizations that was focused on gender inequality. But I think actually that this paper is very useful for understanding also other types of discrimination in organizations. So Acker points out that each organization has its particular culture, and this culture influences the organizational arrangements each community use for everyday work, and that are able to reproduce inequalities in the end. So if we think about research community, we have an ideal number. Let's say that usually it's male, white, an English speaker, middle aged, devoted exclusively to research mission, and overall a genius. And you can really see that it is quite excluding for some other kind of people like women or not white people, or people that don't speak very good English, for example, and young researchers. So we are also an idea of roles which we can impersonate, let's say. So we have one boss and many assistants said that this way of imagining a relationship suggests also the idea of power and balance, which is one key source of discrimination, and also competition, both horizontally among the systems today, and also vertically from top down and down to top. And of course, given this kind of let's say ideal community, we also use specific team building strategies. So conferences are one nice example, because I've read lots of papers and stories complaining about coffee networking during the coffee breaks, that it's usually done standing. That is makes for people on wheelchair, for example, very difficult to be physically at the same level of other researchers. And this suggests again, a difference of level as people and ability of networking. Of course, we do jokes on other groups and other researchers, maybe highlighting something that is wrong with them. So we are excluding them for our community in also just, I mean, psychological level, but we do. And then we have sexist or racist jobs that are very helpful for team build in male dominated environments. And I left this in italics, because this is something that is more and more censored as a behavior, and it's already changing. So this is a good example about things that we can change if we just focus on how exclusive against other people can be. Okay, so given this underlying culture, it's no wonder that the team structure that we see today in the research community is a competitive system with many people in just individuals, but also research groups and also universities that are competing to be the top ranking world university. So this is something that pushed toward very heavy working pattern to work as much as you can. Every time you can. And this is confirming already the idea of being devoted solely to the research mission and nothing else. And this is of course, it's something that recreates and recreates the publisher parish system that it's something that in the end reproduces the image of the ideal member I said at the beginning, because if you have family to care after, if you spend your time on like voluntary activities, maybe you publish one article less. And so only those that are completely devoted to research and don't need for don't need, for example, to do other works to, let's say, pay for their unpaid and short-term precarious contracts. All these people are excluded. So this is something that reproduces the inequality we started with. So this is the third but if we want to change where to start, sadly to say, but we need to do both levels at the same time. So we need to change both the culture and the arrangements. So we need to raise awareness to make people see the problem and invite them to change their beliefs. But at the same time, we also need to allow people that are not the ideal member to show that given the proper environment that they can be as excellent as the ideal member. If we don't give the people the chance to prove they are good researchers, they will never become researchers. So we reproduce their inequality again. A good wait, I lost my again, the control of the presentation. I don't know what's happening, but anyway. This is something, I mean, for example, open science is already doing so changing some arrangements about, for example, where to publish, how to publish. And it's something very important for giving proper space to people that are usually excluded but also content that are usually excluded from closed journals, let's say, but we of course need to change both things at the time. So we need to push farther on the culture beneath open science. Oleg, can you try to, okay, okay, great, I made this, sorry. It's very difficult. So this is to explain that I'm going around for webinars with this very cheap computer that I paid myself because my university doesn't supply computers. But this is a part of the problem about inequality among people that are equipped differently. So what is important here about this, okay, I was saying changing arrangement and culture at the same time. So the COVID-19 crisis imposed some big organizational, new organizational arrangements. So the lockdowns had many people working from home. And so many contracts were suspended. So we have many changes that at the first, in the first moment, heavy impact on disadvantaged groups. So we have read a lot of articles about women being left behind in the publication rate. So yeah, it's good to publish open if you have the time to write something. So this to say that being able to publish somewhere does not mean that you are able to publish on time, because you are caring about other things. So these problems show that we really need to be more inclusive if we want to keep up our scientific contribution to society. And so this gives us the chance to push farther to change the culture. And I had this surprise recently because less than one year ago, during a course on gender quality in higher education, the trainer asked us to look for researchers on Google image. And what we, the results, I mean, gave us the image of the ideal member I talked about before. I did the same thing a few days ago for this presentation. And this is what I got that left me really surprised. So I tried to do the same research with other computers logging from different accounts to say, and maybe it was not, it was something that Google just chose for me because I'm so focused on equality. But yeah, this is, I mean, try, and I invite you to try it at home, because really I was amazed about this change that I think is the result of how much we talked in the last month about the dropping of female researchers papers and also about, I mean, the Black Lives Matter that was an important moment where a lot of people were discussing on how, I mean, there are so many Black scientists that are working, but not so many that are publishing. So this is something that raised a lot of awareness about exclusion in our community. So, yes, everything is very nice. But in the end, we should change the way we evaluate the research. I mean, so we can publish, but then of course we need to be hired to be, we need to be promoted to advance our careers. And if we keep evaluating only the papers, we are going to lose the different challenges, the different behaviors, the different struggles that are behind these piles of book. I mean, just evaluating if one writes a lot or not so much doesn't, don't tell us if how these people are coping with their struggles. And what I really care most is that science is a community, research is possible only within community. And so we really need to promote scientists that are able to write good things, but at the same time are able to make their working environment a place where also other can write good things. If we build our careers, destroying other careers, we are not advancing science, we are just advancing our personal objectives. So what can we actually do for changing things? I mean, evaluation is not something that we can change as early career researchers. I mean, we're trying to do that. We're advocating a lot also on this. But what every one of us can do every day in our life is, first of all, question our assumptions. So don't take for granted anything. If your colleague is not answering your emails or it's always behind with deadlines, maybe you can pick up the phone and ask what's going on, because maybe this person is struggling with something for some professional personal level. And talking with this person as a person, not as a worker or a producer, you can understand how you can change the environment for making it more inclusive for this person. And sometimes really just talking and feeling supported is already really helpful. So asking others what can we do to help them feel at their ease is the root of finding concrete solution for change. Of course, when you have an idea of good solution, you should advocate for this change to be implemented within the organization, that is your department or the wider community international level. And one again, again and again, strive towards a cooperative working environment. And this is extremely important because if we work in a competitive environment, we cannot profit for supporting those that are disadvantaged, because all the time I spend trying to help a colleague that having that is having difficulties in finding something to improve their research, I'm losing time that I can use for publishing more than him and getting a promotion instead of him. In a cooperative environment, each of us profits from the other's well-being and from different perspectives. So this is something that makes science strive towards more integrity, higher quality, and in the end, more efficacy in the world. So to sum up, sorry if I got emotional, but I really care about this point because it is something that makes the difference really, I think. So each solution we implement needs to be carefully tailored, both empowering and engaging all members, so asking people, each person, what they need for their work in the best way. And we also need to seek the same table to address issues in the efficacious and respectful manner. Since we are all different, for sure, one solution is going to benefit someone more than others. But if we sit together and we try to cooperate toward the best solution, we can find a way to work together in an efficacious way. And I will also say this is the key behavior behind democracy. So this is what makes our science more democratic. This is what makes also our society, I mean in the wider sense, more democratic. If we think that science is something that should help society to walk towards a better future, we also need to protect this way of dealing with problems all together. So these are some references, I mean if you want to read something that we wrote in this last month. And these are my contacts and the EuroDoc quality working group emails. So if you want to be involved in our work or you want to share some experience or you have some questions after this presentation, please feel free to write and I will answer as soon as it can. So thanks a lot. Okay, thank you very much, Sarah and Alexander, this was very interesting. There are not really that much questions. So I think that means your presentation was very interesting and very clear. Do you have anything that you want to start to discussion about with the audience? Remember, if you want to for the participants, if you raise your hand, I can allow you to talk. Yeah, I'm seeing from the chat that you got similar results. So it means that things are already changing in some way. It's nice surprise. Actually, from a photo business perspective, I'm an amateur photographer. So I know that in recent years, the demand for displaying inclusivity in images is very high. So yeah, it's completely understandable. It's a good moment forward in this regard. But actually, maybe you notice that my presentations was more about like really open science and Sarah's more about inclusivity and equity. But I think that for us, openness, I mean, openness in access to research data and publications to different scientific features is the same thing that equality because when something is open, when there is a box of apples, one can take one. So it's very simple. And if you have payables, if you have some restrictions, then community becomes exclusive. And you have to decide who you invite, who is invited, who is not. So that's how it works. That's how we connect these two topics and moving forward one of them moves another. Okay, maybe someone still wants to contract with maybe some questions. I know that our presentations on general level, of course, because we don't have much time. But as I said, we have, we invite all of you because I think that most of the participants of this webinar are early career researchers. So you can join your docks through your national association. And your docks open working groups as equality working group open science working group are open to many people. They are exclusive. Sorry, inclusive. Yeah, yeah, of course. And our ambassadors open science ambassadors program is also an inclusive community with people from different countries, different backgrounds. And we try to make it gender equal. But at the moment, there are much more women than men. So we are on the right path for sure. Okay, maybe there are some comments. Okay, are you polls? That's a poll from okay, but I think that we can't vote for hosts and panelists can't vote. Okay, I can say that I was really interested about, you know, the description you made about, because as you can understand, we work in Europe in different working groups. And then, of course, we strive all together from different perspectives to the same results, so making science more open, accessible, and find concrete solution to be all the part of all a part of this big community. So I was really interested. And I think I make an announcement that I take the ambassador training because you really got me. Perfect. So let me just give one comment. Sarah has a very interesting research focus. Maybe Sarah, you can announce it. It's really very, very interesting. And I think that her research focus will give another level of diversity to our diverse group. Sarah, could you please tell us? Yeah, yeah, I work on history of contemporary China. So I'm a sinologist. And this is very, I can tell a very interesting story about science being English speaker, because I met a lot of people saying, Oh, Chinese speak very bad English. And but then when I ask how good is their Chinese, people usually say, I don't speak Chinese. I mean, this is something important. So we have 53% of every career that shares, but also 36%. So the majority of participants early career research is perfect. It's very good. So it's really nice to see how things can change. I mean, so it's, it's important to, yeah, diversity of our groups. So if you are, if you feel that you can contribute with your experience, I mean, we're always very open to new people really to join. What is important that the concept of early career researcher differs much from Jew from, sorry, from young researcher. So you don't have to be young to be early career researcher. It's just, you know, it could be different concepts. And people who it's more about career, not age. And we in the questionnaire in the survey I mentioned, there was a question we asked people if they consider themselves early career researchers. So if you consider yourself an early career researchers, please consider also being an open science ambassador of your own. So I mean, I'm wondering if we were so engaging and clear in our presentations that nobody is going to ask us or that I don't know. But in any case, really, if you I mean, need time to reflect on what we said today and you want to ask some questions in the next days, please feel free to do so. Yeah, and I also want to add that you are looking general stands for nice things. And we always need extra volunteers. There's huge amounts of work and very nice and interesting work on international level. And helping hands are always needed. You can look at our structure on the website. There are many working groups from equality to open science and from, I guess, exactly. Yes, everything. So if you want to join, and if you have some questions, you have our contacts and you are more than welcome to ask. Maybe you have some final comments. I would just like to thank you very much for this very interesting webinar. It's very nice to see all of you also quite a lot of new faces and participants. So that's what we always very interesting. I will share the presentations and recordings and maybe I can also add your contact details to that, so that people, the people here can actually see, you know, I get in touch with you directly if they want to join. So sorry, sorry about that. So that leaves me nothing but to close this and to invite you all for the final webinar of this week tomorrow at noon. Exactly. Let me just share the announcement if you didn't register yet. So this is the final one. It's in collaboration with Core. It's about open science policies. It might also be it. It might seem a little bit maybe too high-brow for early career researchers, but on the other hand the sooner you get involved with this or you let you hear your voice or interesting it will be for you and the more weight you can throw in. So I would invite all of you cordially to join us tomorrow. You can register via the open access week website. And in that case, nothing left for me, but to thank you both and see you in, yeah, see you later. Thanks, Glenn. Have a nice evening to all of you. Bye, guys. Bye-bye.