But before we start, maybe just for the audiences here, just to know what stage of careers you all are in.  No grad students here? Maybe they're all attending online. Postdocs, and then scientists. Various, okay, cool. So now we know, I guess most of the audiences here are postdocs, but we might have people at different stages attending online. And I just want to start by you guys telling us about your experiences in publishing papers at different stages of your career. Like how different do you feel them to be as a grad student, as a postdoc, or as a scientist now? And if they're not different, that's also great. Just maybe a short summary of how you feel about publishing papers through. Yeah. Okay, I can go ahead. So I think, means in my opinion, publications are the most impactful dissemination mechanism of our research. Means we can, we also go to the conferences. When we are working on projects, we also write reports. We make conference presentations. But I think that among these three dissemination mechanisms, publications are the most impactful because they have the ability to reach a wide range of people in different countries, among different platforms. And they are trusted the most. Like for example, when you go for your job search, and so the people, the first thing that the people will try to look in your series is your publication record. Also the funding agencies, they find peer-reviewed publications more attractive compared to reports or conference presentations. So if you have peer-reviewed publications, probably you have a better chance of securing funding. Not to say that the reports and conference presentations are not worthy. They are worthy as well. So in my career, I have given publications that are most priority. Means if I'm working on something, I try to make sure that I get a publication out of it. Sometimes that puts extra pressure on me because as project scientist, we work on defined projects. And our first priority is to meet the milestones and deliverables that the sponsor requires. So sometimes you run out of funding and you have to put in your own time to write the paper and publish it. So that could be one challenge, especially in the project scientist job that you can face. But I always make it my top priority to publish. Along the record, like when I was a graduate student, I think it took me more time to write a paper because I was not as familiar with the literature and the problems that I was trying to address. I was probably understanding the literature, understanding where the knowledge in the field was and at the same time, trying to identify the best problems that I want to address during my PhD. So it took me longer time to write papers during my PhD. And I think the process is getting a little easier with time as I'm building my scientific knowledge. And so especially when you have, you are working in a project scientist setting, when you have a defined project. So you already have the motivation and you do a lot of work about the paper itself when you write the reports, the progress reports. So it has become a little easier now. I would not say that the quality has gone down. So you have to make sure that the quality stays there. We cannot just be publishing anywhere. So you have to, I try to maintain a like, okay, this is the general that I want to go to. And I try to maintain that during my publications. Okay, so it's good to hear that it does get easier with time despite, yeah. Yeah, I guess I just have a comment of like, since a lot of postdocs especially haven't had experience in writing progress reports or proposals even, reviewing papers I think is really helpful because you can kind of figure out that perspective of someone from the outside who's gonna be reviewing your paper. And so that gives you a little bit of insight into how to structure your paper or give ideas on how to maybe avoid some of the criticisms that may come up. So I think reviewing papers is a really good thing to do to as you're developing the sort of system that works best for you in writing papers. And same thing with progress reports and asking your PI for the proposal that they wrote to support the grant and those sorts of things. So if you haven't gotten to a point where you're writing proposals in progress reports that's probably a good exercise to help out. Were you at Westage, did you start writing proposals? Did you do that? Well I think my first proposal was this like DOE graduate fellow proposal and then it was ASP fellow and then the most recent grant. Okay, yeah. Yeah so to add to publications I didn't get into science because I love writing. Same. It's hard and I still struggle with it. But as you said publications are a really important metric of our career for jobs and also it reaches the most number of people. That said also like you it's gotten easier because I've gotten more familiar with the literature but you know I sort of have switched into like oh this thing seems interesting. All of a sudden I'm coordinating the development of the crop model but I didn't know much about agriculture before that. And so to write my first paper related to agriculture type things which I thought was a really interesting topic I took me months to dig into the literature and to really get that foundation and so those kinds of things are a real challenge. I'm trying to think of there were other things that I was gonna say but I don't remember. Yeah it's I mean I just I think that also reviewing papers is a good thing to do and don't be hard on yourself. Reviewers the review process never gets easier. You're getting rejected all the time you know and I will say reviewing papers is a good thing and maybe we'll come back to this but that reviewer author relationship can be really hard because reviewers can be very helpful or very nasty and it ranges the whole spectrum and so that's another thing that you have to deal with. But I remember the other thing that I was gonna say is for me giving a presentation actually helps me structure the paper and it allows me to get feedback from the questions I get from the audience and comments that I get even after my talk to think about the additional types of things that I need to address and so that helps me sort of frame the story that I'm going to write and so I actually like giving presentations on the topic that I'm hoping to write a paper about beforehand. Okay, go ahead. Kind of coming back to what you were saying about the literature review being kind of one of the biggest hurdles. I guess I'm wondering if when you're writing about a topic you've never written about before do you have some sort of approach with oh I'm gonna write my results first and then do my literature review or? Yeah, I mean for me it varies by the paper and how I'm feeling about it but you know I'm actually just starting this process with a new paper with a topic that I'm not as familiar with and so I start off usually by reading other papers on the topic that are sort of key papers and trying to understand how are they framing it what is the context and then I often will dig into citations there but yes writing the results first can be somewhat helpful but I feel like I always am having to go back and forth between sections because I might change the results based on some of the context that I'm reading in the literature and thinking oh I should actually reanalyze this or you know add additional analyses and so it does change in flow but I feel like I usually have the figures that I think I'm going to write the paper and sort of a little bit about each and then I try to add that context so often times after I have the results section outlined I'll go back and try to write the introduction so that I have that bigger context and that actually helps me frame the whole paper and realize what additional information I might need in the results Yeah I think one thing that's helped me and everyone will find a different system everyone will be different in how I think about their papers but I like to like do my literature review and kind of keep a list of all the different papers that are somewhat relevant to whatever topic I'm doing and so I'll just have a list of papers and like sort of two or three statements on the key things that relate to whatever it is I'm working on and then when I go back so then I write the results and like describe the results and then can go back and really pull out different lines from that first sort of list of findings from previous work and then can structure my introduction that way so it's kind of like yeah you do kind of go back and forth but having that initial step I think is really good. Any other questions? So I guess we need to touch briefly on responding to the reviewers and I think everybody has had some experience in doing that and maybe just to start how do you deal with negative reviews? It's hard. Yeah, so when I get the first review of my paper however negative they are I'm not mad at them so this is the first thing that I do and the reason means there is a reason I do that means when I read a paper I have a lot of questions about the paper. So if I'm the reviewer of the paper and I'm doing a first reading and I get a lot of questions I put down all the questions that could be my first review. So the first review could be really out of the curiosity like maybe we get a reviewer who is not as familiar with the field as we are so of course going through the paper the reviewer will have a lot of nasty questions maybe some things will not make sense to those reviewers. So when I get the first review if it is really negative one then in my responses I really try to respond like I'm responding to a fifth grader. So explain each and everything in your responses and my experience has been such that when I do that I have been successful almost every time. So building on that I mean I do think it's important to explain everything but you can get negative reviews. I was recently told in a review that oh thank goodness you're not lying anymore. And so there are some people yeah I mean you get really I've also gotten a reviewer comment that said clearly this person is not in the field of biology and I was like I'm getting my PhD in ecology. I don't know. And so there are assumptions that reviewers make and I will say pay attention when you're writing reviews please don't do that. It's really rude to people. I also have been on a paper where the lead author is from the US native English speaker that was told please have a native English speaker review. And I mean it's just those kinds of things are really obnoxious and so keep that in mind. But what I will say this last review that I was told that thank goodness you're not lying I mean that whole review was really emotional and really personal and so I had to write my snarky comments back and then delete the whole thing. And then go through step by step because really I think underlying any very negative review is even if you feel like you're right there's something that the reviewer is picking up on that's maybe not as clear as it should be or something like that. And so I usually try to take a step back and release my anger because I do they're very frustrated and very angry with some of these reviewers. And just to sort of take a step back and say okay what really are they trying to get at? And if there is a fundamental misunderstanding where you're like yeah but this reviewer is wrong it's probably because there's something that's not explained very well in your paper. And so just trying to understand what that is and it's hard because reviewers don't always know how to articulate it they're not taking a ton of time to review your paper so keeping those things in mind I think are just a really important part of the process and just trying not to take it personally which is I know really hard but I do think you kind of have to have a thick skin the rejections get easier the more you get unfortunately because you're always gonna get them I mean we're taught to be critical in our reviews and it's I feel like it's a rare thing where you will submit a paper for the first time and the reviewers will come back and say oh this is a great paper. I mean if you think about when you're reviewing a paper you're trying to help make it better so you're almost also never gonna say that right? And so those are just things to keep in mind. Just follow up on what you're saying. One thing I'm wondering about is when you do get a negative review in addition to these strategies for dealing with your frustration and their rudeness things like that how have you found or who and how have you found people to help you move through it because I look back in papers that I wrote where I ended up dropping it because I guess I didn't have the gumption or somebody to tell me like no like right back to the editor or send it to another journal and so I ended up abandoning a few papers which now I think oh too bad I can go back and say that you can find people who can help you with that. I mean that is a really important thing to have a community of people that you can talk to about that and I yeah I mean it's finding the right people but also knowing that your paper is going to be publishable just maybe not in the journal that you thought and it might require some significant reworking and or some additional analyses or you know and you have to try and understand where the reviewer is coming from because most I mean almost all of the time my paper has been made better by reviewer comments.  Oh man but I think there's some determination that goes into it and I think that there is the support of your peers and also you know the community. I remember my very first paper getting rejected and the person that I talked to about it said whoa that almost never happens and it was like what papers never get rejected and then it just made me feel even worse but then I went back to my peers in grad school and they were like oh yeah I've had like I've had to resubmit to four or five different journals because it's gotten rejected so many times and that you know so your peers and your friends are just as important in this process I think as your mentors and maybe even more so because they're more at sort of the level that it's going through. And I will also say it varies by field when I tried to submit papers to the physiological literature like physiological plant physiological literature that is much much much more likely to get rejected than if I submit something to a modeling based thing and so it really does vary by field and I think that there's different cultures within different fields and so keep that in mind as well when talking to other people you know like the person who said that almost never happens was in the modeling field and so. Yeah so the other person to talk to is the editor. Yeah. I think in general they're on your side like they want to help and they want to have more journals and they want to have more articles in their journal. So I think being able to have like a candid conversation with them of like hey you know do you think this is something I should resubmit or should I move on you know and then do the same thing with your peers who you know are going to give you an honest answer of like hey can you just take a look at this like is it really alarmingly bad or is it something that can be matured into something that's ready to go. And the other thing I just wanted to mention disconnecting personally is like number one step for review process and whenever you submit a paper like Donica was saying like you should expect that they're gonna have criticisms because that's our job as a reviewer is to really dig in and make sure they're dotting their eyes and crossing their teeth and that's the job of the reviewer so that they become really good articles that have a long lasting influence and so I think it's you should expect that when you get a review back that you should get some sort of feedback. Otherwise like whenever if I get a reviewer who like didn't have a lot of feedback I'm like oh it's probably like a graduate student or someone who like doesn't know the feel of very well or something like that when I get something with a lot more thorough feedback I'm like cool I'm glad they got somebody who like knows their stuff like sucks like point A through F but you know it's more work we need to do but that's okay kind of thing. You know one thing I would like Eddie's like if you get a really negative review and even after talking to the editor and it says no you should not resubmit to this journal when you go to another journal try to address at least the measure comments that you get from the previous review so that will improve the quality of the paper and maybe the review process will get easier in the next journal. It's true I have had a paper rejected though because they just didn't like the results and they had no other comments and so in that case I couldn't. So in those cases and also the cases that people are just plain rude in their reviews do you contact the editor too or point that out in your response saying I really didn't appreciate that or didn't. So in this last I mean this last round the paper is actually still in review and so we'll see what the next round is but I had one round of reviews where I got that like oh now you're not lying kind of it just that visceral response and I sent it back and I actually asked a couple of people I said should I request not having this reviewer again and I got sort of mixed responses and I don't know if there is a right answer. I got mixed responses and so what I ended up doing at the sort of encouragement of a few people that I talked to was in my cover letter back to the editor saying these reviews were not helpful they were too emotional and they weren't very helpful but the editor still sent it back to that same reviewer and then I got rejected because that reviewer was just very you know it was this is on the crop model and then our system model and that person was in a you know was an agronomic modeler and said so in the review and you know it was just like I don't think you should have crop models in our system models and that was you know why but in that case even though that reviewer came back saying rejected and the editor basically said we're rejecting this but please resubmit and then I had to write a letter to the editor as you said saying I'm confused by this because I can't really address comments which is you know you don't think that there should be a crop model and in our system model I can't address that because that's exactly what we did but the editor you know from just that correspondent said yes I would really like you to resubmit because she was very supportive of this it just was given that review process that was kind of how she had to deal with that. Yeah that logistical problem and so you know having those conversations with editors can be good and can be useful but it is hard and I was actually sort of confused by the response but writing back to the editor I also know that for some journals sometimes people will repeal the editor's decision and write back an appeal and a lot of times that doesn't work but occasionally it does. Yeah it worked for us recently I'm co-author on a paper and so we got the reviews and one of the reviewers said we cannot trust the observations they made and so then we wrote back to the editor and we said okay these are the measurements made using this and this technology and this technology is well proven it works on top of that we applied this and this quality control to control the quality of our observations so if that is the basis of rejecting the manuscript we feel that it's unfair and so then the editor wrote back to us and she said like I am not particularly worried about this command but then she pointed out a couple of other comments that was the basis of her decision to reject and then we made a response to those comments and then she reopened the manuscript in the journal. So yeah it occasionally works most of the time it doesn't work and then sometimes the editors are also very helpful for example I was the reviewer on one paper and I read the paper I recommended major revision the authors addressed my comments and when I got the second evaluation I put minor revision and accept and then somehow there was a third version maybe the other reviewers had still major concerns and the concerns of the major the other reviewers they eliminated all of the recommendations that I made in the first round so when the third version came to me I still saw all the mistakes that were in the first version so I again recommended major revision and then the editor called me up and he said I'm confused by your review because first you say major revision then you say minor and accept and now you again say major revision so then I explained to the editor like that this is what happened and that's why that is the basis for my decision and then the editor asked me like but what is your opinion on the overall quality of the paper do you think that it is worthy of being published in this journal? I said yes if these comments are addressed and then the editor made sure that they addressed the comments and the paper was published Okay, I have some questions from my mind by the way Yeah, maybe Olivier will go first How do you say so in the past I've prioritized editors who I trust but how do you do that? Do you prioritize editors? Do you prioritize the journal, the prestige? In terms of deciding where to submit Yeah, where to publish I mean I think it I've mainly been in the atmospheric science journals so they'll say that so AGU, so that's Journal of Geophysical Research and then Geophysical Research Letters and then for AMS it's the Journal of Atmospheric Science those are like the main journals I've led papers in and the decision on that has mainly been driven by who's gonna read this journal so AMS is typically more meteorology and then Geophysical, the AGU is more all our system so and then in terms of the GRL those were papers where I had pretty concise messages that I could summarize into a very short article and those are great especially as a reader, GRL article every day or a reviewer, yeah reviewers can sometimes be hard but the differences are things where with the GRL it's shorter messaging or more concise and then you have this extra supplemental material and then for in terms of editors I don't know, I think in general I've had good experience with all the editors and if you have a bad experience then you kind of knock that off of like, okay that's not someone I want to submit under but in the future, you know So following up on that has any of you had trouble with the editors? I now have a paper and a review and the editor doesn't respond to my emails so that happened and I've had it happen before and then I send an email to like the executive editors and no one ever respond to them maybe they just send them to that journal maybe there's other staff members that you could CC on there but I don't know them how do you find out about them? Oh, you haven't got any email so are there people who like send you the, like I don't know yeah, like the extension, right? If I ask for an extension they will send me an extension but I never got an extension so for one journal I've done that and I know now this person who granted the extension but for this other journal they just never replied like not even a staff member or anyone so I don't know who that would be I would avoid that journal in the future Yeah, I would just move that down it's like a I mean there are journals I avoid for that reason because things take really long or you know the editors are unresponsive but I know I haven't focused quite as much on looking for editors I focus a little bit more on the journal and you know like you were saying Christina what the readership of the journal is like who is it going to reach because even though you can search almost any you know you can search by topic now online and so anybody can find articles in any journal but people still do sign up and get table of contents for certain journals and so there are things that you're gonna see and so that's you know but then also where does it fit within a journal and again like you were saying with the GRL or the ERL or even the nature, nature climate change those kinds of journals those are shorter concise messages that are really nice, they're nice to write they're nice to read, they're nice to if you're a reviewer they're nicer to review because usually they're written pretty well and then there are the longer ones like I've also gone to geoscientific model development and places like that for you know those kinds of things and so it also sort of depends on the category but if you know the editors and trust them it's gonna be great I did have one experience though where I thought I knew and trusted the editor and I had one associate editor say you should submit this paper to this journal and then the overall editor whoever whatever that position is called rejected it and this was while I was a graduate student with one line saying it doesn't fit within the scope of this journal and there are serious problems and that was it and I was a little bit horrified by the very much lack of response but just telling me that there was something wrong with the paper but not actually telling me what it was and it took three months to get that one line response which was also really disheartening and disappointing cause I assumed that it was out for review but it was just with the editor the whole time so you know I do think it really varies I think also asking your co-authors like hey do you have any like special editions or what do you think would be an appropriate journal and then you know pricing sometimes maybe plays a role too so yeah so we have a question I just want to say this is really great to hear these stories I was giving like it's great to hear the problems and to know you're not alone I'm sure people are feeling like oh I'm not the only one who had to wait three months for a response that wasn't even on review so thank you for that okay so the first question is how do you identify key papers on a new topic this was following on an earlier comment starting with a review paper and in the lit review do you read all the papers entirely or just skim and that's from Chris Krusey so yeah obviously start from a review paper and personally I don't go through the whole paper I pay the most attention to that abstract and then the summary and then I quickly skim through the figures and then I try to write down the important messages from all the papers so that I can come up with a summary of the knowledge that exists in the field at that point and then I try I put up that against my understanding of the subject and try to find new problems that I can address I would say if you use a review paper if it's within the last like two years because usually if a review paper is written more than two years ago there's a whole bunch of more studies that have come out I mean not always but it can be and so I think that's a good starting point but then looking at some of the key papers that were referenced for the topic that you're specifically looking at and then going to searching for those and see who cited them and then go and dig into those but I agree like reading every single paper is probably impossible from start to finish and then there's usually like a couple papers where you do read all the way through and you look at the technical details and stuff but the majority of them are oh I remember this figure let me go look back and see what they exactly plotted and what the assumptions were blah blah blah yeah I think that both of those everything that both of you said is really accurate and I wanted to just highlight that it points out as a writer how important your abstract is because that is what people are reading so pay attention to that and your figures when you're writing your paper and make your figure legends readable but to follow up on that when I'm diving into a new topic yes I read the abstract I go through a lot of papers and I usually I start with one paper that has been key in helping me to think about this in the first place and then I look at what they cite and I'll look at the figures and then I say okay how did they do this and so I'll go back to the methods or maybe I'll read the results or the discussion but a lot of times introductions are actually very helpful because they give you an overview and so then I look at the papers that they cite in the introduction and I will go back and so abstract figures introduction for me is really what I focus on when I'm getting into a new area and this is I was just doing this yesterday reading a couple of key papers and then going through the introduction and looking up the other papers that they were citing so. I have another question from a remote person do you review papers that are not exactly of your area of expertise? If so, do you have any tips for reviewing such papers without feeling and not adequate enough to give you a review? That's from Emma Darvinen. Thank you. I've never done that I mean see if I feel that this is outside my expertise and I cannot do justice to the paper so I generally decline it and these journals always give you the option to recommend other reviewers who would be suitable for that. I think if it's going to require you to spend a lot of time looking up literature maybe avoid it. Yeah, that's what I was going to say is it depends on how far outside my field because you know there are things like I got something on like plant-train script domes that there's no way you know I don't know anything about that but you know another paper that was sort of tangential to what I do but related enough that I could probably understand it then I will if I feel like I have time then I will try to review it and you know sometimes actually that can help you help the author clarify the message because if you don't understand something you know the people other people reading it might also might not understand it so it just I think it depends on how far away from your field is if it's really a topic that you don't know much about at all or is like really on the edge then I would say don't do it but if it's within a scope of you know I understand how models work and so I can understand some other aspect about this model that might not be my like plant-based focus maybe it's on soil moisture or something like that you know that might be relevant enough that I can yeah and as a reviewer if you end up getting to a point where a lot of times you can't see the full manuscript until you're already committed to reviewing it so if you get to that point you can still give like an overall cursory review like the structure of the paper and whether or not it's clear but then you can also communicate to the editor by the way I just read through this and I realized that you really need to make sure that at least one of your viewers is an expert in ice nucleation because I don't actually know anything about that you know so so that's another thing to note for reviewing papers outside of your main research question back yeah so actually I had a bad experience in publishing a paper in ACP Rajesh was the co-author so actually we submitted a journal we submitted that publication in July 2017 and we got first response from reviewer in August 2017 but then for next six months there was a silence so we wrote three emails to editor and there was no response he just said you will get review soon you will get review soon and I got the next review in February 2018 and those comments were exact they were most of them were exactly similar to the previous ones and they just they have commented each and every line that it has this problem, that problem and that was a too long of a review and then they said you should make all these changes and submit within one month which was very you know difficult to do so although we asked for extension and finally it got published in August 2018 but it took too long and it was really bad experience for me so I was curious how to deal with such situations because in my case even editor was not helpful yeah but I would like to because I was a co-author on the paper and I was involved in the whole process so it was a really weird review process one of the reviewers said this paper is a duplication of the other paper and so we got that serious comment and so first I was surprised that it is not rejected it was put to major revision because if if the reviewer feels that it's a duplication but I was happy that we get a chance to respond so we made a point by point response on what this what new knowledge this paper is providing and after we submitted our responses the editor even did not even send it back to the reviewers for their feedback and just accepted it so it was good for us but it was a really weird review process ACP it's a the open access journals could be really tough sometimes because they have a lot of they have a lot of papers that are submitted that they have to and they have a like limited editorial board so I had one experience in in the same journal in 2015 so I submitted a paper and they were not able to find an editor for one month and at that point they wrote back to me and they said we are unable to find an editor either you find an editor yourself or you withdraw the paper and submit to another journal so I was ready to withdraw it and send it somewhere else but one of my co-authors said I know a couple of editors so let me write to them so she wrote to a couple of editors and one of them agreed to handle the manuscript and then we got their views after we submitted our responses the editor she was pregnant so she went on medical leave so the paper was again abandoned and and then so the executive board they reached out to the editor and they said because you have been handling the process the whole time and we understand you have a medical reason for you to leave but please finish this paper and she again did the same thing she just accepted it so I have had I've experienced these two two weird things and since then I have never sent a paper to you that's true of two yeah it's I've heard of this consistently with ACP so ACP is I'm a spirit chemistry and physics not only open access but it's open discussion and so if your paper is rejected it's dead you can't submit it unless you no you can really you can't resubmit it to another journal unless you really change it yeah I think you can you can ask ACP to kind of remove it from their website to remove it from their own discussion phase we had one paper where we had three rounds of reviewers and it was rejected and then we went to we went to another journal for submission and after the submission the journal said oh your paper is already on the ACP website so you need to ask them to take it down and so we did that and then it is under review in the other journal yeah I think you can it's just an extra step but I've talked to editors at open access journals who have said I really try to be hard as the initial editor and reject it right away if it's not good enough but not all editors are the same so yeah I had the same experience and like it took so long because it seems that they have they have a pool so they put all of the papers over there so editors go and find whatever is interesting to them and then it's like another pool for reviewers like they should also so that's like it takes so long but this raise another question that if we have like a table that what is the timeline of journals usually because my experience with them it took like maybe four months or three months for editor and then reviewers maybe two, three months and then after that things were nice and they were really good with comments and really useful one and with extension they were really good so is there like such a thing so we know like first of all which one they give you an extension because sometimes that's necessary because you don't want to have like a very firm deadlines and like how like other journals like when you submit it's like like it's always you get editor or you might also get into considering that that's really related to that journal so what was your idea about that? I think it's all over the board it is yeah I think it really depends on the journal and it also depends within the journal on the editor and so those things are hard and I've had, you know I mean there are journals that in my section, terrestrial sciences section we're like don't submit to global biogeochemical cycles they take years and but then there are others that are so fast and turn around really quickly and I think at least for me I just anticipate that it's gonna be a long process and it really sucks when you're a graduate student or a postdoc to know that you have to wait that long because the publications at that point in your career are really important because you don't have as many of them at that point and you want to get a job and so you know and that's that is a real struggle and a real challenge but you just have to- So what I can assume about with HUNAMS how was their time? Very different it was like all over the board and it's been different with when I'm co-authors of another papers you know it's also different I don't even think there's really a seasonality to it it's like there's so many parameters that go into figuring out how long it's gonna take it also can take a long time to find specific reviewers so like there was a paper where we had a new technology that like we developed and there are like four people in the world who probably could give us an actual good review and probably three, two or three of them have conflicts of interest with someone on the author list you know so I think it's really hard for them to find reviewers as well so those are accepting reviews outside of your comfort zone can sometimes be helpful Yeah so we ended up having somebody who was very well very good for reviewing that part of the paper but yeah I think it's all over the board I think the main thing to remember is like publications are a marathon period like it takes so long to get your research even to a point where you can write a paper and then once you submit it and get it to the point where it's available that it's such a long process but it feels really good that you finally get it I have a question from Daniel Kennedy one obstacle to publishing is deciding when your figure set and I think he also means data has coalesced into a meaningful story for publication is there a way to develop more confidence in identifying when you've reached that point as opposed to endlessly iterating through new analysis I'm having this problem right now I'm doing something totally new so yeah I mean I think it's a hard thing but that's where I think going and giving presentations and talking to people can actually really help because it helps you to formulate your data into a story that you have to tell and I feel like it's easier to do at least for me in presentation format than it is writing a paper and then realizing that through the writing process although I've done it through both but you get feedback then and this can be just to your peers it can be research reports we have those in CGD I don't know if you have them elsewhere it can be at a conference but just trying to do that I think can help you iterate through that process another thing to think about is a lot of journals now want like three key points and I think if you can have one sort of like baseline like every piece of data supports this one and then maybe two of those and then one that's sort of like we're kind of spreading ourselves then here but this is what we think could be an interesting avenue like so having two one or two like really good this is so supported by our study and then one that's sort of a little bit more liberal you know I think is also a good yeah yeah so generally follow that approach it's when you have two solid points at that point I say to myself okay I think it is worthy of a short so you submit it and sometimes the viewer comes back to you and they ask like okay this piece is missing and then it is safe to say I mean I do that most of the time that okay this needs a new analysis and we are pursuing that analysis sometimes I even have figures from my new analysis that I submit in my responses that we are doing this and then there will be another paper coming out of it on that so that is to tell the reviewers that the analysis has not stopped but whatever the problem we are discussing it is worthy of two papers and so we will have another paper soon yeah and I think kind of going back and like what we're talking about for reviews is really being able to be clear going into it that these are the facts that support my key points so that whenever somebody I also had somebody say like this was a repeat of your previous paper and I was just like what? Like no, you didn't read either of these or I don't know what happened and I think being able to say like this is what we knew this is the literature right now and without this piece this is what's missing and this is what we're filling and so I think like sticking to the facts and saying like X, Y and Z therefore that's like I think that's generally a good guideline yeah and another thing that I normally do with my papers is once I have the first draft ready I read it from a reverse perspective and I asked myself why would I reject this paper and then if something comes to my mind I try to address it before submission yeah I'm always surprised though by I tried to do that with mine as well and I still get comments that I'm not anticipating at all and I'm always surprised by my co-authors also you know also when I'm a co-author on a paper I try to think about it from a reviewer's lens but I don't, we still miss things that other reviewers say so yeah even if you are confident that this is a very good paper you still get a lot of comments and you end up in major revision Courageous, do you still have a question? Yeah so kind of back to the comment we discussed a lot about issues with reviewers and editors but I wanted to ask how do you deal with any conflict or disagreement among the co-authors of a paper with respect to maybe one of the original manuscript but then also in how you respond to reviewers where you push back or where you compromise so if you could speak to that Stick to the facts and a lot of times it's a lot of language so like being like these data indicate that X, Y, or Z versus these data mean this is definitely happening or this data supports the idea that this may be you know like just basic little word changes can oftentimes please both reviewers and co-authors but again like sticking to the facts of this is what we have so this is why this is the way we're putting this It's still really hard though because people can interpret facts in different ways and you know I experienced that I had a paper where I had two co-authors on opposite extremes where I was showing this model process has this sensitivity just to sort of say you know we don't know much about this but we need to better understand and I had one co-author who said this absolutely needs to be in the models it's very important here's all the data that we're collecting to measure and another one that said we don't know anything about this this process needs to be taken out of the model and you need to say that in your paper and I didn't want to go either way and I think ultimately what it comes down to and this is harder to do as your earlier on in your career but is having the confidence to say this is what I'm gonna stick to and sticking to the facts a lot of times is a good thing but just being able to explain clearly and I mean sometimes it might mean that people wanna be taken off of your paper if there really is that strong of a conflict and you have to be okay with that it's hard, it sucks but it's not a personal thing or it shouldn't be at least so the other thing is getting on the phone like not just doing every email but being like hey can we set up a conference call to figure out how we're gonna agree to address this reviewer and say lay out the facts and everyone kind of be able to voice their opinion and also potentially bend a little easier I think email it's so easy to disconnect and just be like I'm just gonna give my thoughts whatever it's so much more organic to decide on an agreement if you're on the phone. Yeah I agree with what Paul said. When I have this conflict I give myself a couple of days inside if I get such a comment then I don't think about it for two days because sometimes it makes me mad and so first I just let my anger go away and then think more strategically about it before talking to my co-authors. Yeah I often have to walk away from reviews from conflicts for that exact reason because it helps you take the emotion out of it. Curtis can you if you're comfortable could you share with us how you handled it and what happened? Sure so my specific experience and Jared knows a little about this he helped me with the process but so it was a manuscript from my dissertation and there was a debate about the color palette used and how accessible we wanted to be we wanted to advocate for consistency of using a rainbow palette similar to what National Weather Service already uses however one of the reviewers had a comment on changing it to more of like a grayscale pattern and one of the co-authors who outranked me certainly felt that we should kind of simply go with what the reviewer wanted and not push back for consistency so Jared actually helped me with looking at something called and I think color oracle? Color blue palette I think so yeah it's a little app where you can at least on Mac and I believe it might be on other platforms too where you can just in a little menu bar show okay what does my screen look like in these various color blindness modes so that you can see are the colors that I have on my figure are they distinguishable if someone has one of these forms of color blindness or grayscale you know so that you can really make figures that are intelligible and then you can just say in response to the reviewer this is acceptable based on you know we looked at this and so what we ultimately ended up doing was so I showed this tool to the co-author who felt like we should just accommodate the reviewer it actually was a much broader discussion about accessibility in manuscripts for kind of different issues color blindness being one of them and we found that by simply changing the hue of the color slightly we were able to keep kind of a similar rainbow scale but it was discernible to those with color blindness and we actually reached out to some other colleagues that had color blindness and said you know here's kind of a couple versions of this figure which ones look best to you so it certainly was a difficult one to address that whole you know do we push back or do we just kind of accommodate but definitely it was an insightful conversation and learned a new tool out of it as well so yeah thank you Jared and how did the reviewer respond? The reviewer kind of after that the reviewer appreciated the time and effort and we put a kind of lengthy response and the reviewer said you know I'm glad like I'm happy that you've reached out to other people and that they were fine with this change I think some yeah and I mean sort of related to that but you know some of it does come down to personal preference and that's a hard thing but it sounds like you sort of went about it in trying to think about people who might not be able to see the figures as clearly and that's a very helpful way to think about it as well and I feel like you know going back to what Christina said earlier that's part of you know going with the facts is you know people who are color blind might not be able to see this scale versus this scale and so that's why we chose this. Yeah another comment just you mentioned about a co-author wanting to sort of just bend whatever the reviewer was asking I think it's your job as the lead author or even a co-author to support the work that you guys have intended to do and there are a lot of times when reviewers are just simply missing something and they think that the paper will be better or they think that this is like a simple thing to add but it's not or it wasn't the point of your paper or like you just fundamentally disagree with them and I think it's really important for you to you owe it to yourself to because of all the work that you've put into it to keep to what you want and try to find a creative way to satisfy that reviewer or give lengthy responses things like that otherwise you'll look back on the paper and then the future and be like I hated that we did that or you know whatever. Oh so you touched, you touched on that a little bit how do you navigate co-authorship and does that get, I guess that gets easier as more as like you climb up the career ladder but I just found that during my masters and also my PhD you're in a very dependent position ultimately and it is very easy for, I think the Thai guidelines are that just because somebody's funding you that doesn't mean they automatically are a new paper if they haven't contributed anything to the actual paper but that was challenged a lot during that time and that was really difficult because I'm dependent on that, right? It's a, I mean it's a challenge and it can be a challenge and it's hard when people don't contribute anything and still want to be a co-author but the way that I think about it is in the end adding an extra person, it doesn't get a paper any harm. This is true. And so you know it's, I just sort of feel like okay well if you, and I mean in some respects if they've done all the work to write the proposal and get the funding and acquire that funding the work wouldn't have been possible without them so you know maybe that is okay. It doesn't, I don't know that it always entailed that and not everybody who acquires the funding is going to require being on the paper. So that's a personal preference thing but I think in the end what I found is that fighting that makes people feel worse and resentful towards you and really all it is is another name on your paper and so I don't know that it's worth fighting that too much but in terms of thinking about who should be on your paper you know that's a sort of a slightly different question which is of course anybody who has contributed or even if they haven't necessarily contributed to the analysis, if you think that they can contribute positively and give really insightful feedback to framing your paper and really putting it in context because they have some sort of expertise in that area I think can also, they can also be really helpful co-authors yeah. Even if like somebody means really helps you in the discussion stage like you wrote a draft and you share with them and they provide really useful feedback then I think it's a good idea. Like Danika said it doesn't do any harm if you add one more person at the end of the paper. So sometimes you get into another situation like you really want to get feedback from some person and I think it also comes down to like individual morality that they still give you feedback but they say that I've not contributed to the paper so please don't put me on it. So I think you get both the situation sometimes you have to make that compromise that adding one more person to the list doesn't do any harm and then you also have to decide like whether it is worth fighting to put your energy and time into just deciding whether to add one more name or not because you can use that time for your other things that you are doing. Yeah I mean I guess the experience I had was like a person that consisted the like on my, not only the paper that was in the end but on my talks and on my post that is like never ever contributed anything and at some point it becomes just like something I get presented for. Yeah I think that's like your cue to figure our way out of the situation where you have to collaborate with them. So I've been in similar situations where it's like people email me like I should be lost author I should be further up in the list and you know one of my advisor at the time sort of literally laughed at this person because he was like I wish I had time to worry about that. I wish I had time to worry about my rank in the author list on a paper that I don't even really, I haven't even really contributed to. So I think that in general there are always gonna be people like that and like I think this is a really key point is that in the end it doesn't really affect anything and just know that there are some people like that and whenever I'm even tangentially working with this person now I'm always like I would like to invite you to be a co-author if you think it's appropriate and then that person can decide what they want. I think that that's a really important point though is thinking about who your collaborators are because you will find that there are certain people that are just no fun to work with at all and somebody who is constantly requiring to be put on to things without contributing anything that's a really tough situation and you just while you're doing the work that they fund you you just kinda have to grit your teeth and move forward with that but you know Christina said getting out of that situation is a good thing and it can also, it can be hard in the other way where somebody wants to be on and then wants to give all sorts of comments and is really opinionated about it. That situation also happens and that's another really hard situation where you just have to try and appease people to the best of your ability and I think some of it comes down to these personalities that really just want to be in the center of everything and part of it is they just need to be recognized and need to be heard and then they're a lot easier to deal with and so it's just sort of like a people management problem that we shouldn't have to deal with as scientists but we do all the time. But I will say choose your collaborators carefully if you can help it and sometimes you can't but if you can it's a really important thing to think about. I think the main goal as the lead author or co-author is just to make sure that the people who did contribute significantly are recognized in the appropriate way and that's all you can really do and if you are a co-author make sure that you're meeting the expectations that you would expect from your co-author so like you're reviewing the paper you can give a presentation on it you can describe the paper in some way, I think it's good. Okay, can I ask about what you said with Mollerstein in an appropriate way? So like a general way, I was wondering about this at lunch the other day that in the field that I was in before, a while ago the funding person or the person with, yeah basically the person with the funding so we wrote the proposal at the initial idea would always go last and that would sort of indicate that they were in some way the most important one not writing it but starting this work but then sometimes that ends up that people who contributed to this paper because they supported me in a sort of technical way or something they move in front of it just in front of this person just because I think I thought that the last position was the most so apart from the first the last would be the most important so that's some confusion about how, what is the ordering? I think it's just a matter of asking to reference, yeah. It's not, yeah. You would say that there is no defined rule for this. I think it's just a window for that. I think it changes field by field. Yeah, that's what I was gonna say is I think it does change my field and there are some, and because there's so much crossing of fields in what all of us do, I think it does depend on the personal preference and so my PhD advisor always wanted to be the last author even though he contributed more than some other people but I'm on a lot of papers that have like 50 authors, right? And they're not gonna be the last author on that and so in that case what I've seen people do is the people who contribute most are the first whatever and then everybody else is in alphabetical order after that so I think that there's different strategies and I think talking to some of the people is helpful, the key players I would say and then the other people who are maybe not as key then you say this is what I'm doing and then you can explain it and it helps. Yeah, I think asking again, taking care of your key people is like I think the number one. Do you assume when you read a paper do you assume that the last person is the person? I don't really pay attention too much. Also the other factor that plays in is if they're faculty or if they're a science lab because a lot of times they count how many papers your first author and how many papers your last author so that's like an actual metric in some of the faculty track departments and so that's why sometimes people really care because it's like I acquired the funding and so I need this to count towards my numbers or whatever so I think just asking up front and giving people the opportunity to state their preference is the number of the staff. And now the journals, a lot of journals are either when you submit your paper you say my co-author did, they provided comments on provided the original data and comments on the manager but you can really see who. Yeah, that's true. It is. But I have another question. It's following up on a question that was asked earlier about knowing when to stop and try. And I think like if you're like, okay I'm stopping here, this is a short paper. There's always more you can do and so then the question becomes when do you speculate about, you've interpreted your results up to X point but there can always be more interpretation and so then it seems to me like some people like speculating some reviewers like you to say, okay well what could control what you're seeing but other people hate it. And the one time I did it I really regretted it because I published a paper the next year saying that was no, but so I guess I was wondering whether what your takes were on speculating So yeah, I mean I think as I said earlier I see that out of three key points do I have two of my key points that are really strong and when I generally avoid speculation but sometimes the reviewer ask you like okay this could also be possible and so in my response is I generally try to do a short experiment to investigate that possibility. For example in one of my papers I made a statement that I was looking at three different meteorological configurations and we know that the sea salt emissions depends on wind speed. So I made a statement that okay the wind speed in this particular configuration is higher so we expect sea salt emissions to be higher in that case and the reviewer came back and asked do you really see it? And so we had any kind of three member study and going over four months obviously I cannot repeat the experiment. So in my responses I just took two days and I showed that there is a positive relationship between wind speed and sea salt emissions. That was sufficient to satisfy the reviewer and but then you also have to write a statement that this is only based on a short period of studies and it would require more exploration and this is not the main point of the paper. So that's how I generally go about it. Of course you have to put your results into the context of the overall picture and you can add a paragraph in your, at the end of your paper saying that my results might have implications for this. Just putting the word might open a lot of new possibilities. Yeah, I think having the one sort of speculative one maybe you're most excited about and then all the other ones are great information for proposal. Yeah, I try not to go too far. You know, I speculate with him reason and put all the caveats into that. We might be able to think this but there's all these other things that we need to consider that we haven't and so trying not to be too certain. And I have, you know, I think that has changed from when I was a graduate student to now where I used to try and speculate more because I felt like maybe it would have a bigger impact but I definitely got a lot of reviews that were like, you can't actually say that or there's so much uncertainty that I realized that I didn't wanna overstate my results and so that's just helped bring me in. Yeah, I have a couple of questions and my first question is actually as I was told, the list of conclusions is very important. So in connection to that, how and where does the impact factor that is cumulative impact factor is helpful in our career or in our next position? My second question is how it is easy or difficult to publish in a journal with impact factor more than 20 or 25? So honestly, personally, I don't care about the impact factor. I care about the message that I want to convey and personally if you look at it, look like JGR, ACP, Environmental Science and Technology. So you'll see that JGR has a lower impact factor but I still send most of my papers to JGR because I like the review process. So I care about the message, not the impact factor and the second question that going to a high impact journal like maybe Nature or Science, I believe you mean you are referring to those when you say impact factor more than 20. Those are really, so we have to understand that the rejection rate is really high. I think somewhere I was reading that Nature publishes only eight out of 200 papers they get every year. So we have to understand the rejection rate is really high. So before I go to that journal, if I think that my results are worthy of going into that journal, I don't write the paper. I write the key message, maybe one paragraph summary and I try to find an editor that is in my field and I send a pre-submission inquiry. Nature now has an official pre-submission inquiry that you can submit like one page summary of your paper and they can assess whether it is worthy of being published in Nature. So by doing that, you would get a feedback and that would save you a lot of time. It's like if you draft the paper in Nature or Science format and it gets rejected and it's a lot of work to read draft it. So I try to send the key message first to the editor and you have to be in your email or in your conversation. You should not be putting the stress on the editor. You should say that of course I understand that publishing is subjected to peer review but we would like to inquire whether this message is within the scope of Nature or Science. And believe me, most of the time you will say no. They will say no because they have again the high, very high rejection rate. Another thing that I've seen recently is because of the amount of papers they are getting, they have opened a lot of sister journals like Nature Climate Change, Nature Communications, Nature Scientific Reports, Science Advances. So most of the time they will also recommend you to go to those journals saying that okay, this would fit within the scope of that journal. So doing a pre-submission inquiry, I found it really useful. Should we move on to other questions? I would just add about the impact factor thing.  And so impact factor is often misleading. Like a lot of AMS journals have fairly low impact factors compared to like Elsevier journals but for the fields that you're, the people that you're trying to reach, those are the journals that they read. And so impact factor can maybe be a consideration but I don't think should be the be all and all. I think it's a distraction. Yeah, that's, I also don't pay attention to impact factors. The one thing that I will say though is it might matter more if you're faculty at a university. And so. And then different countries like in Australia apparently it's huge. And so. Europe too. Yeah, and I think that we are very lucky to be able to say that because I would agree with what you just said which is some of these journals don't necessarily have high impact factors but are well respected journals that are widely read. And so I think about it more of is this journal respected, do I know other papers that are published in it, those kinds of things. But if you are gonna target a nature or a science doing that inquiry first is a really nice thing because you at least even have a sense for whether or not this might even be considered because it's hard to write a full paper and then just have it rejected because you have to complete it. Yeah, it's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. Yeah, the other thing too is a lot of these high impact journals because they want you to, you should look at the review criteria because a lot of times I've rejected a lot of these papers because it just doesn't check the boxes that the journal wants of having this high impact on the field. So if your work is very good but it's not answering every single question related to the earth system, sometimes it's gonna not make it through. So I think if you can look at, if you can either review for the journal or at least look at the criteria and just make sure that you're kind of meeting those requirements because a lot of times I've seen so many nature papers in my field where I read them and I'm like, what the hell? Like there's so many assumptions that these people made and it was because they wanted a global map or you know, whatever. So I think trying to be aware of the scope of your work and how it fits into the journal I think is important. But for a preliminary short listing for any position that the cumulative impact factor is very important. Sorry, can you say that again? For short listing, for a preliminary short listing go for a job, for short listing people look at the cumulative impact factor. Yeah, I mean, I've got interviews of places where, and I don't pay attention to those things because I don't know. It might be for some places and so it might be worth considering if you're looking across journals that are well respected and you think get similar readership to maybe try for the one that has the highest impact factor. Maybe just to share, coming off a recent faculty search process, impact factors did not come up in conversations that I had with hiring committees. I think they were more happy to see kind of what was your potential for external funding, what was, did you have any publications and you know, at least not kind of the predatory journals kind of the other side of the coin. But it will vary certainly based on what they're looking for. I've been rejected at many places in my job search and the impact factor was not one of the reasons. Hi, my name is Jennifer. I'm actually not a scientist. I'm the head of the library here at NCAR. And I just wanted to chime in on this topic of journal impact factor and other bibliometric ways of assessing your work, which is part of the work of the organization. I'm very encouraged to hear that you all don't value journal impact factor and that there is awareness about how journals might gain this system in order to continue to exercise their current business model. However, the journal impact factor and other bibliometric things such as the H-index, which is another way of sort of slicing and dicing the number of citations relative to your publications, these are used by the organization as a whole. So the NSF, when we report to the NSF, the library supports the bibliometric analysis of the publication record of the organization and at that level, they start talking about journal impact factor and H-index also comes up in the arc, so in your promotion and tenure process. And so all of that to say, if anyone has questions about these sort of things, which are not really related to your scientific work, but are part of this exercise of scholarly communication and how the impact of that is evaluated, I would definitely encourage you to reach out to the library with any questions or if you just wanna talk about these issues anymore. And when I say reach out to the library in this context, it's probably me that you wanna reach out to, but we can also be reached at ncarreff at ucar.edu and we typically address those emails based on who has the expertise to answer the question. Thank you so much, Jennifer. Well. Sorry, I have a couple of questions from online and given that we're coming to a close, I think these are kind of inspiring. One of them is how do you get yourself to actually write science is fun, writing is not. This is from one person. And then another person asks, when is a good time to begin to write a paper after most research is done or little by little with work progress? If you could come in on those inspiring parts. It varies by person, I think, and what your work ethic is, but when I was finishing my PhD, one person gave me this piece of advice, right? One paragraph a day. And sometimes that will kick you into being able to write more and other times you just need to take a break and walk away from it. And that actually really worked for me. And so it can be one paragraph or one hour or something where you just try and set aside time. But I think having dedicated time, because you were like, I don't love to write, but it's a part of what I have to do. And so for me being consistent and writing through, you know, trying to write even little bits every day, even if I don't necessarily have a lot to write is helpful because it keeps me in that flow. I get really bad writer's block that I can spend like four hours on two sentences, you know, and it's, I just, I can do that to myself and it's a lot easier to do that to myself if I'm not writing consistently. Whereas if I write consistently, it also can help me sometimes to write in the evening with a glass of wine. Yeah, I think it's just figuring out, I think it's choosing to figure out a strategy to love writing, or at least be okay with spending time writing because it's a requirement of all of our jobs and figuring, so being committed to figuring out your strategy and then sticking to it. So like being creative, like I set a lot of timers in my day, like throughout the day, doing outlines. I also found that I think a lot better if I'm writing with a pen and paper, you know, but all this is different for everybody.  Like I have to figure out a way to make this fun or at least feel good of like, okay, accomplish something. Yeah, you can always fill your time with other things if you're not gonna commit to the time too. It's a really good thing. Contability buddies can be helpful. Yeah, there's also a book called How to Write a Lot.  Like just spitting it all out, you know, sometimes really helpful. Revising is a good thing. Yeah, and I think in terms of when to start writing, I think if you've got, you know, a couple really solid figures, like the first two key points are kind of figured out, I think that's a good place to start. Methods are always the easiest for me to start. Yeah, methods, intro. Like I think it's just getting an outline. I do a lot of outlines for my papers, which really helped me. Again, it's just like, like choosing consciously. Like I have to figure out a way to like this. I agree with both and I think there are two other questions and we have five minutes because I need to leave, so maybe we'll take Jared. Yeah, mine should be short. So I know in RAL, we have a process of, you have a good solid draft of a paper before you submit it, it has to be reviewed internally by someone else in RAL. Do other labs at NCAR have that same procedure? What is that? Because I- E-weldas. CGD does not. Oh, okay. CGD does not. I meant ASP is required. ASP is required. And you know. Oh, I didn't do that. I think that's really helpful because that's a friendly review. Someone who might have some idea what you're doing, but they aren't on the paper, they aren't intimately familiar, but I mean, someone in your lab isn't going to just rip you. But at what stage is that? Is that when you're outlining the voices? It's required, so in RAL, it's required before you submit it to the journal. So when it's already pretty far. It has to be in a state where- It has to be in a traffic light. You see, you will submit to the journal. Yeah, it has to be almost ready to submit, but it's an internal pre-review just to make sure that- Can this person be your co-author? Or- Not a co-author. It has to be an outside person. It's not a co-author. Not a co-author, but someone in the lab. Yeah, it's also a- Do all people follow this rule? Well, I guess I could- So- You've never heard about that. In WSAP, we follow it. Every paper gets reviewed internally before it gets submitted. It was an actual question. I just wanted to continue it. Well, I said a little bit, it's like what really, really helped me with writing was an accountability group for writing and then actual sessions where we came together and we called them shut up and write sessions and they worked so well for me. And then actually a paper on how to write a paper because they gave me structure. Turning off my internet was also a really- Yes. Not checking email because my internet's off and going to a coffee shop, taking myself out of my normal situation, those things that you just have to find works for you. Like I really early morning, like 5.30 in the morning. My cousin's still asleep, Kat's just sleeping, whatever, and email is more or less quiet and I can get a lot more into one hour period. Yeah, I was trying to be writing on the paper. That keeps me more focused instead of writing on the computer screen. Yeah. At least the introduction part or the motivation part, I tried to do it in isolation, just having a pen and paper and then retype it. Can I tell us about your accountability group? Yeah, sure. Like a retail? Yeah. So my friend Rebecca Huckers started it and she works in Ecom and so I guess if anybody wants to try it out and join just come to me after this is over. We just meet Mondays in the cafeteria and we just check in with each other, we create a plan, we check in with last week, it provides the Vimito writing goals and we create a plan for the next two weeks. And it's just worked really well for me. Yeah, so. Sorry guys, I need to leave, I've been here another meeting at exactly 11, so. Yeah, that's a big thank you. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. All the panelists for taking their time to talk to us and if you guys want to keep discussing this subject, we actually have another workshop where event coming up in two weeks. That's gonna be a conversation to more senior scientists and editors to see if we can get the other side of the publishing stories. So hopefully it will be useful to you all as well. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.