So, like Fiona said, our first speaker today is going to be Rink Hoekstra, who's going to outline a case that he experienced to do with editorial misconduct or misbehaviors. So I'll just quickly, he's also based in the Netherlands and unfortunately can't be with us today. So he's pre-recorded a video for us. So I'll just share that now. Hopefully everybody can see. First of all, thank you Dan for organizing the session and for. No check is in everyone here that okay. Fighting me. I think this is a very relevant and important topic that we do not discuss often enough. And my role here is to talk about one particular case of clear editorial misconduct. And this happened about 10 years ago. I finished my dissertation a few years before and I was still in the process of trying to publish a few of the unpublished chapters. And one of these chapters was on comparing the interpretation of confidence involved and hypothesis tests in a similar situation. It doesn't really matter for this story, but we deemed this paper appropriate for the journal educational and psychological measure. And for years, I've been a bit hesitant to talk about this publicly and also to publicly name and chain a journal and the editor of this journal. But I've decided to do it anyway. And the reason for that, the way I've justified this for myself is that I think that editors have a lot of power in the current academic system. And I don't think I'm punching down when talking about this. I think I'm punching up and I think we're, it's important enough because well, the issue. For a second, we can't agree with me. Just, I think your windows are covering the slides. We can see your cursor. So the whole screen was black for a minute. They might just want to keep the other windows closed. Sorry. Sorry, can we see it again? I do mention the journal, the publisher and the editor. Okay, so I submitted this paper. It was reviewed within a month and I received two reviews and an editorial decision. So it was quick, but the sad part was it wasn't positive. So the email that I got from George Marcolides, the editor at that time and still the editor of the journal was, well, you don't have to read the entirety of it. But basically rejection of the paper without a chance to re-submit. I'm not optimistic that a rewrite would improve matters. So apparently it was bad enough to reject it straight away. Okay, so we were thinking about where to submit next. And then something weird happened because I received an email on the very same day that I received this rejection from Fiona Fittler, who I knew from two previous conferences that we both visited and where we were both in the same session. And she wrote an email and she said, I reviewed a paper of yours. I think it was from you. It was anonymous, but I recognized it from this conference we were both visiting. And I wondered what the status was of this paper. And I wrote back, like, oh, curious that you didn't receive the reviews and the decision, but it was rejected. And well, then I had to wait another day because, well, the time differences between Europe and Australia. And then I received, like, seven emails from Fiona saying, ranging from, hey, I'm sorry for you to, well, there is something really bad going on. So she could compare her reviews with the reviews that, or with the review that she submitted. And it was clear to her that the two were completely different or not completely different, but quite different. At least they did not match, which you would expect. And they did not differ on tiny details, but there were some clear differences which I will show in a minute. So what was different between the two reviews? Well, Fiona wrote in her review, I believe one of the first sentences, such studies are immensely important at this stage in psychology, in statistical reform. And this one is a good example. So apparently she was pretty positive about my paper. What I received from the journal was such studies can be, not are, but can be immensely important. Apparently this one was not. And indeed, this one still needs work. This was a sentence that she did not write. Another example, she wrote below our some minor concerns. I did not receive this sentence. So it was just removed, which changes the tenor of the, of her review quite a bit, especially when not so negative or slightly, or the constructive remarks you made were turned into negative remarks. And it was also a completely new paragraph. The entire paragraph is new, but I highlighted part here. Here is where I would see the problem. Participants in the study are not a clear different population and resources. Well, again, I'm not going to talk about a particular study, but this happened to coincide with comments of the only other review. So there were two reviewers and now the two reviews were more similar than there were before, which makes the decision for an editor a little bit easier. At least that is my speculation why this happened in the first place. So what did the editor respond? Because how did he respond? Because of course, Fiona approached him and he said, well, yeah, let me mention that a similar incident occurred before where the system somehow blended and even distorted review or comments on a manuscript. That sounds very, very weird indeed. Hard to believe actually. And well, he said, I come back to this in a couple of days and he did. And then he wrote, well, this email, which includes one of the weirdest paragraphs I've ever read, which is this one. I am told that on very rare occasions when the system is undergoing maintenance and several, several editors are simultaneously processing papers. The links between individual reviewer documents submitted to the journal and forwarded to an editor can be modeled. You don't have to be an academic to completely or immediately see that this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nobody would believe this, I think. This apparently occurs more frequently when strings of characters across documents bear overlapping similarities. There's a lot of words here, but it doesn't have any meaning. This is completely made up, I would say. And it's not only me saying it, years later, implicitly, the alternatives implicitly had made a change. So what happened? I was asked to resubmit. Suddenly, the rejected without a chance to resubmit turned into, well, relatively minor revisions. So it was easy to publish the paper after that. You could say that's also an ethical issue and I should have refused. Maybe at this stage of my career I would have done that, but then I didn't have tenure and publications were too important for me. So I did accept it, which you can criticize me for. And after a week it wasn't sent back to reviewers, so after a week I received confirmation that the paper was accepted. And then, luckily, Sage would question the editor to step down. No, of course they did not. Again, in an interview years later, our journalist asked Sage what they did and they said, well, we addressed the issue directly with the editor at the time. Because, of course, Fiona made them aware of it. She sent them an email and they said, well, this is unacceptable and we'll do something and basically she never heard back. Then for years nothing happened. And Fiona and I contemplated what to do with it and, well, we never really knew what to do and then at some point we came across a journalist, Kathleen O'Grady, and she was willing to publish about this and among others. So this particular case was mentioned in a piece that she published last year. Among relievers was asked to give a response and here is his admission of guilt, I think, but it's very weak. In hindsight I should have contacted her rather than attempting to resolve the problem on my own. Note that this is something completely different than the modeling of two similar texts or something, whatever he said back then. So here he basically admits that he resolved the problem on his own, which is basically saying, I wrote other sentences. And then he says, still sometimes he had his reports for clarity or to remove inappropriate language. He doesn't say it explicitly, but it's by equating it to it almost sounds like, well, I tried to make the review of Fiona clearer and maybe I removed inappropriate language. He doesn't say so, but apparently he did it for, well, for good reasons and of course I don't believe it. So to wrap up some final remarks, you could say, well, why talk about this? This happened 10 years ago and that's true. Maybe something changed in the meantime. Well, the editor, George Marcolidis, still holds his position. And from the outside at least I can't see anything changing with this journal. Of course I don't publish there anymore, but if you look at the policies, it doesn't seem to have changed. And yes, it isn't a go-to and we have to be aware of that. By no means am I saying, well, this happens regularly. I have no idea about that. Or well, maybe Dan can talk about that later, but we don't know a lot about that yet. But I do still think it's relevant. First of all, because apparently this can happen in the current academic system. And apparently we also condone it. We also maybe even enable it. Even after it happened and it was made public, nothing happened. So I was, 10 years ago, I would have said, well, maybe even a few years ago, I would have said the self-correcting mechanism eventually solves this, right? If it's found out, if it's made public, of course they get rid of him. They did not. So apparently we don't think this is important enough to justify strong measures in this case. So I think this points to a lack of accountability in academia. And I think this is a topic that we should discuss more. Thank you for your attention. Okay, we're going to move straight into Dan's talk next. I'll just start sharing my screen. Can everyone see and hear me okay? Yeah, we do have a couple of black boxes around the slides that I did. Is that? A couple at the top in the right hand corner, some gray squares. Okay, is that any better? Yeah, it is. Yeah. Okay, great. Okay, so just to fill up what's rank, rank's presentation, what I thought might be good would be just to give a little bit of backgrounds on some of some of the issues that are in this space. Obviously, to talk also about some of the things that Rink had mentioned specifically, but I thought it might be nice to start before we get into Ginny's talk on cope and what cope is just to go through some of the topics that we talk about when we talk about unethical practices in editing in terms of publication practices. So just to get straight into it. This is probably a bit of a strong, a strong quote, but the former editor of the BMJ Richard Smith once said about 10 plus years ago what is called, what has been called the age of accountability editors have continued to be as unaccountable as kings, that stories of editorial misconduct are growing. So as I was writing these slides I was thinking, as I was watching talks like the ones with Elizabeth pick and James headers I noticed that we often talk about when we talk about unethical practices or erroneous, erroneous practices we usually talk about the authors of the unethical practices. So, you know, Elizabeth picks of this morning about the number of people who do image manipulation and, and out of Marcus talked about some finales, finding of 2% of people admit to misconduct those kinds of things. And I think on the back of this we tend to put editors and peer review in this role of catching fraud and, and policing the literature. It's not surprising that we see about 95 for almost 100% of people or researchers in in stem and social sciences believe that editors and editorial boards are jointly or entirely responsible for managing these issues. But what we also notice over the last 20 years is we we hear more and more of these practices. No doubt, due to the ease of which people can communicate. And I think this through to things like Twitter and pub peer and the great job that retraction watch does, but given just how opaque peer review is in general, it's not surprising that peer review scholars consider trying to understand and investigate editorial misbehavior is a high difficulty and high priority research area. So some of the common practices I think most people are probably familiar with that tend to get a lot of airtime is requests for citations. There's been a few surveys of academics and researchers about this and, and in one by Wilhight and Fong, they found that you know 20% of over 6000 researchers said said that they had previously been coerced, or strongly suggested to decide literature from a journal. So one of the, the examples that they give. You know, is it you site leukemia only once in 42 references. So could we please ask you to add more references to to the cameo. So obviously this is an egregious example but some. There are other, maybe reasonable examples of, you know, if there's been a bit of a scholarly oversight or some, some important literature that's been missed you can understand why people might do this. So we've noted editors publishing in their own journals original work. And in a survey that we did we found that 87% of the editors that we surveyed were, were supportive of this for, for some or all editors. And again, you know why we wouldn't think too much about submission of editorials. You know when it starts to get prolific I think Dorothy Bishop did a blog about this calling them ppops think that's what you call them just prolific editors publishing in their own periodicals. You know, then it starts to starts to go down the other direction. So in terms of some other things that get discussed as well. I was going to say I was going to populate some numbers in here but I didn't get the chance while rinks presentation was going so I'll post these at the end. So some other things that get discussed so again was with big mention this morning that's that she had submitted to the editors of journals that's about some some images manipulation and five years later 60% of editors had not done anything so we talk about retraction and also a hesitant city to retract, as well as disguising retractions, and sometimes just disappearing articles. We talk about bias in terms of gender and prestige, nationality, publication confirmation lots of biases. There's instances of speeding up and slowing down peer review, as well as IP theft and fellows to disclose conflicts of interest and then what rank have been talking about the notion of editors changing reviewers comments. So these are some, some things that get highlighted in literature. Just to focus in a little bit more on editors alting the notion of editors alting ring reviews I thought I'd just give a quick background and some of the things that I've come across across my journey and looking to this. Interestingly, there are historical reports of of secretariats back in the days of the Royal Society of London, rewriting reviews and they did this to disguise referees handwriting. And I couldn't resist not putting this in obviously this did lead to some people getting a bit upset about it. So this is a piece in nature in in 1871 by an Italian born British astronomer Charles Piazzi Smith. He submitted a paper that I think they sat on for seven months and then rejected and then publish something similar. And so he, he, he basically wasn't very happy about it. And particularly, he wasn't particularly he got a bit of a nasty response by the sounds of it after asking to know the names of the identities of the people who were referring his paper. And then goes on to say that he can't understand what any scientific society in the present day has got to do with the accursed thing in all national history represented by secret committees, secret members secret judgments, veiled profits, and goes on. So going to more current issues. As Rink has said he cuts on a couple of his presentation we do see instances of editors removing offensive language from reviews. So there's been a coat form case specifically dedicated to this. We see instances of editors correcting false statements. Quote unquote, as well as removing excessive cell citation requests. We see this practice of ultimatum editing coming up, which I'll explain in a second as well as Rink's situation of, of where recommendations of reviewers might actually get changed. So in terms of ultimatum editing. There was a case where the editor basically said basically accept my chops on your rejoinder and get it published soon or take your critic elsewhere so it's a bit of a long story that one. I was just to say the editor put an ultimatum to the reviewers to make the changes or to rescind. So basically, this is something that was sent to me by an editor in chief of a journal that I know and this is what editor in chiefs actually see now. So they get a prompt saying please check the comments that reviewers have intended for the author edit where necessary. Just to quickly go through we performed a survey because we were interested in these practices and it ran in 2019, and we were looking at some of these peer review practices and policies, as well as we asked editors their views on some issues, as well to do with these things. Just to focus in on what Rink had said and that situation we did ask editors in what circumstance they thought it would be acceptable for another editor to alter reviewers report without a permission and we put seven situations to them. And these are the results that we got back. So I've just ordered these from sort of the most acceptable to the least. And so most, you know, 60% of editors told us that they think it would be okay to remove comments that were left specifically in for an editor in the interview report just for the editor. And we surprisingly saw the 8% of editors said that they think it's okay to to alter reported they disagree with the recommendation. So I put in, again, the numbers from the audience but I won't be able to do that so I'll post my slides at the ends of the talk when I update those numbers. So just to wrap up the presentation. I thought it focused as quickly on in terms of the policy landscape for editing reports. I mentioned there's a Cape, a Coke forum case where they talked about some a PR getting some not very constructive feedback from a reviewer and the Coke forum agreed that they thought it was okay for publishers or for editors to edit these comments out. And so they recommended that. And then more recently cope had a discussion specifically on this issue and actually released guidance on it on I think Wednesday, which I quickly read this morning. And the cliff notes are effectively that they recommend that journals develop a policy on what's considered acceptable conduct for reviewers, as well as when or if edits may be made. They don't have a problem with edits for tonal language but they do for meaning and intense. And that they suggest that if you were as an editor to to want to edit a report or ultra report that the reviewers should obviously be informed sense, ideally, the edit should be in collaboration with those reviewers. And finally, if, if a journal goes down the pathway of having a blanket no editing policy test to provide authors about how to address some of the comments by reviewers. So this is more of a Jenny thing than me but I thought I quickly raise here. This is obviously the policies that copers come across but I'm be interested to hear from Jenny next about some of the mechanisms that we, that we have in place to ensure that these policies are developed and complied among coat members, and then recognizing that there are not of a lot of self regulation measures out there for journals, what we might do or what happens for for people who aren't coat members. So the very last slide that I wanted to quickly talk through is, as I was pulling these slides together I came across a blog by Philip Cohen, and he was looking at coercive self citation practices and he had put up this quote from an editor who asked his question to themselves when they were trying to think about whether they thought something was ethical or not. And they said would I as an editor feel embarrassed if my activities came to light and would I therefore objective I was publicly responsible for the claims. And when I read this it made me think about that most of the time none of these things are, are public so. And then this is it seems like a bit of a truism but obviously the more opaque the system is the more difficult it is to investigate some of these practices, and just for a little bit further context. For our survey we are noted that 8% of our respondents didn't have a review a policy on governing editing reports, and 15% didn't actually share all reports with all reviewers, and other studies have shown that it can be up to about 50% that don't. In terms of self citation, we know that 1% of journals in our, or in our survey 1% of journals didn't publish reports signed or unsigned, which is consistent with some other studies that have looked into this. And then to some other questions I raise to everybody about some, you know, how many journals adopt system similar to plus one that publishes the name of handling editors on the papers. And presumably no journals provide any detailed on info on rejected articles as well. So my final question to everyone would be, could increasing transparency in some of these domains be a good first step to deter some of these behaviors. So I'll leave it there I've gone a little bit over time. Yeah, thanks we're going to move very quickly now into Jennings talk Jenning do you want to share your slides with us now. After Jennings talk we'll have some closing remarks from some main visit. Yeah, I'll do that. Okay. That's all good. Yep. All right, fantastic well look thanks very much for for the opportunity to do this thanks to the organizers and to everyone who's hung on in there wherever you are it's a beautiful morning Saturday morning in Brisbane which is where I'm based. I'm also the director of a work, a group called open access Australasia. And I was chair of cope from 2012 to 2017 but I just want to make it really clear I'm speaking on my own behalf here I'm not speaking on behalf of cope. But I'm more than happy to kind of discuss any of these, these issues so just to go through quickly so I just want to talk about what cope is its role in the wider publishing ethics landscape, a bit about how it actually works. And then some obvious and perhaps not so obvious editorial misbehavior including one of my sort of hobby horses at the moment which I'll come on to at the end that I'd love to have a discussion about. So cope is the committee on publication ethics. It was started back into 1997 in fact Richard Smith who Dan mentioned just there was one of the founding editors of it. It was three blokes of course because mostly editors them were blokes Richard Smith, Richard Horton of the Lancet and the editor of gut Michael Farthing, and they got together to kind of talk about the sort of ethical issues they were seeing at their journals. And this timeline talks about shows really what's happened since then. I was the editor from 2012. Sorry, the chair from 2012 to 2017 mostly when I was working at plus medicine. And during that time the membership expanded enormously from three back in 1997 and it's now got more than 12,000 members. It's a voluntary membership organization so the journals editors pay to be members of it. It's not an enforcement agency we can have a conversation about whether it should be or whether there's a need to have that in fact we've had that conversation over the various over the years. But what we have found and one of the key things that I think has happened with cope over the years is, is it become increasingly hard for reputable journals not to be a member of cope, because of the work that it does and it's a great example I think of how you can improve behavior by changing the norms within the industry more generally. The other thing just to note of course is the vast majority of editors are actually academics themselves you know it's entwined into the publishing system. And so what every every time we talk about an editor we're pretty much often talking about people who also work as academics and the whole system itself I think is sort of intertwined together. And you can see here that the statement from the cope website that I that I've grabbed which is that it's purposes to ensure ethical practices become part of publishing culture. And they do this through a whole range of roots, most of which are freely available on their website and I'd encourage you to look at them if you're if you're interested. The main thing that cope has is a set of core practices here. So there's 10 of them that are lined up here that range from allegations of misconduct and that can be against authors but also against editors and I'll touch on some of those in a second. Some of I think of the hardest issues that cope deals with which are around post publication discussions and corrections. And we heard earlier today from Elizabeth Bick, who has done some astonishing work in sort of, you know, looking at issues, problems with papers, and trying to get them corrected or attracted and that has been one of the hardest things for journals to engage and I, you know, freely admit that this is by far from a perfect system right now and one of the problems that we have is that there is no easy way to create the literature right now and that that I think has led to sort of all sorts of issues within the sort of leading to the reliability of the sort of what's published. There are other groups around so I've just noted up here the Council of Science Editors which is mostly US based as the European Association of Science Editors both of them have a work that they do on publication ethics. And at the bottom I put the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors also came up in a talk earlier, which is not really a body that sort of deal deals with ethics on a large scale and it is actually a relatively core group that are part of the ICMJE, but they can do some really important stuff and one of the things that the ICMJE did do was mandate trial registration. And that led to a really important change across the entire industry so that now it's virtually impossible to publish a clinical trial in any reputable medical journal if it's not registered and that was the work of the ICMJE taking a stand on that. So let's just, I just wanted to talk then about some how COPE works and how it's sort of how it's a sort of reflection of what the editorial, the ethical challenges are. So the main way that it works is through discussion of cases that happen at member forums and these are all freely available they're all anonymized and they're on the COPE website. And so back in 1999, and you can see the case number there, the first bit indicates which year it was published in, they were already thinking about the integrity of the editors themselves. This was a case where the editor recommended that a paper was rejected but in fact the editor went against it and for reasons that are not apparent actually accepted the paper in a way that was probably inappropriate. Another example of how the cases reflect what's happening in the in the sort of wider publishing industry, publishing more generally, this is a case from from 2012. And this was at a time when we started to see compromise peer review peer reviews being submitted to journals and this was sort of an early this this case in particular is an earlier reflection of what later came to be a really rather quite massive issue which was the sort of paper mills that were published, along with fabricated peer reviews. And the reason for that was because of the need for authors, particularly from some from some countries in particular, to get their papers published and there was a wide scale wholesale attempt to sort of the whole publishing industry as it were through fabricating papers and fabricating peer reviews. But I just want to finish by talking about editorial, sort of what I think is modern editorial misbehavior and to tie it back into what I think is the sort of really big issue that we need to think about more, more generally so we've heard about this already from from Dan but this issue of editors and reviewing reviewers requiring authors to cite site their own work is actually unfortunately quite common. This is a paper where actually a staff member in an editorial office noted that particular editor was asking reviewers, authors to cite papers by themselves. And these were happened much more often than when they asked them to cite when there are papers that they were not co authors of. And this led, you know, there's further work things that happened so this, this is where the editor was actually particularly trying to manipulate their impact factor and the way that they were doing that was asking for specific references to publications in their own journal, and only publications at a time frame that would have that would affect the impact factor. And then even perhaps even more egregiously. This is a paper from, from more recently where one particular editor noticed that another journal editor had figured out how to massage the impact factor by publishing annual reviews that up to the number of citations to their own journal and thought this might be quite a good idea to do themselves and so you can see how sort of poor behavior populates itself across across the industry. But the problem is this this isn't new at all and so I just want to come back to think about editorial misconduct overall and think about how it ties into the overall publication and sort of a scholarly landscape really. When I was at one of the editors at plus medicine back in 2006 we published this paper called the impact factor game. And what became really clear to us when we first started publishing and actually thinking about what the impact factor for our journal might be at that time is that the whole system was completely corrupt and was already entwined with things such as how journals were perceived by society more widely. So we were able to actually manipulate impact factors by having discussions with the organization that that ran the impact factor at that time, and which was pretty opaque to most academics. And so what we ended up with is a system that journals played because they knew their authors needed to care about it in that they would attempt to manipulate their impact factors to encourage authors to publish there. And this is the most vicious cycle that we know that we have right now. I don't have time to go into the whole body of work that's been shown that you know the attempt for the authors who try to publish in high impact factor journals, more likely to try and cut corners, but we know that the whole system itself is highly problematic in that you know one particular system that we have leads to misbehavior sort of across the academic publishing or generally. So I'll just finish with a few things I thought we might kind of have a think on. I think you know let's talk about ethical issues of editors, but I think it's part of the wider academic system more generally. How much do we care about manipulation of citation impact factors and if so, do we have a better system. And then of course there are a whole range of initiatives that are thinking about this right now including the declaration on research assessment. And the United Manifesto Hong Kong principles, all of which are trying to think about how we might move away from the sort of system that we have that leads to the editorial misconduct that I think is sort of highly problematic. So I'll stop there and hope to have a good discussion. Great thanks so much. That was a great set of talks. So I'll keep my comments brief so that we have a lot of time for discussion there's already some great questions in the comments feel free to add more questions in the q amp a or comments. So, I think one theme for me and my experiences being an editor is I was really shocked at how little accountability and transparency there is on the part of the editors themselves that we can do a lot and get away with a lot. And people just assume that we're, we have good intentions and we're benevolent and so on. Part of it is, as Jenny mentioned that the most majority of editors are academic editors. So we're doing this, you know, on top of a full time job and I think people recognize that this is very big service, but I think that sometimes comes with a feeling that therefore we don't need any oversight we don't need to be concerned about what editors are doing. So this story I think, not just what happened but the lack of consequences I think is is really really concerning this just that maybe there, there is no recourse there is no one watching the editors no consequence. I mean obviously it's a single case but there still hasn't been a consequence in that case, which is really really shocking to me and this is a case where you know there's not much ambiguity here, but more generally I think there's, you know, we probably all had this sort of hearing an author's story maybe on social media maybe you know through the grapevine about unfair biased review or decision letter, and I'm often in a position where I just don't know what to believe like I think authors sometimes see things through a distorted lens or misremember things like that, but I do think sometimes at reviewers and editors are biased and right now there's not really a good way for this to come to light and I think there's a few things we could do to increase the transparency and accountability of editors and of journals and we spend a lot of time talking about the transparency of authors, but I think we really need to be talking about how we can increase transparency of the process of peer review and our ability to hold editors and journals accountable. So one really simple thing I mean it's, it's a bit more complicated but just transparent peer review for published articles of an article is accepted. The journal could publish the peer review history, and that doesn't mean identifying the reviewers it just means publishing whatever it would be normally just shared with authors the decision letter and reviews whether they're signed or not publishing that, along with the peer review paper so everybody can look at the peer review process that doesn't completely solve the problem because that only applies to accepted papers and probably most of the problematic things happen and rejected papers. And there's a couple of solutions to that one extreme one would be overlay journals, where all the peer review history is published as it goes along and so there are some of those actually so meta psychology in the field of psychology does this and I'm sure there are some but I think a less drastic step and I'm for overlay journals I think that's great. But if we're not ready for that and the minimum I think journals should do is have a policy that authors are allowed to share and post their own decision letters and reviews that they received from the journal, however widely they want so they can share it with other scholars and post them publicly on their blog or on their preprint or whatever. That information should be for the first of all the authors should be able to share it with whoever they want. And second of all it's only by allowing even rejection letters and and and reviews from rejected papers to be shared that we might be able to detect patterns of bias or unfairness or corruption. Sometimes it's not clear from an individual decision that an editor is biased or engaging in practices, but only if we can see a pattern across multiple rejection letters could we see that pattern and so I think that should be on controversial it should just be a right of authors to post their decision letters and reviews if they want to, even for rejected papers. I think this also raises some interesting questions about the distinction between academic editors and professional editors there some journals where the editors are full time staff and paid their salary for their job. And I think that some of the attitudes I've felt as an editor as an academic editor is almost like too much generosity and too much charity and interpretation of editors behavior because of our dual roles as academics so first of all, like it's challenging for people to to challenge me because I'm a senior academic in the field and if they, you know, upset me as an editor that might affect their chances of getting a job in my department or something like that they could be worried about that. So there's some advantages I think to a professional editor model. And also I think it helps us think of it more as a job that comes with responsibilities, it's a very very powerful job so should come with a lot of responsibility not lower standards, I think it should come with higher standards. I'm not saying that there's everything is better in the professional editor model but I think it's an interesting way to think about the pros and cons, and different ways of kind of thinking about the responsibilities and privileges of being an editor. So I'll wrap it up there and turn to the questions from the audience. So, I mean one I think we've mostly dealt with this but Jason asked about whether publishing peer reviews along with articles would deter this behavior. So that would deal that would work for accepted papers right but it doesn't work for rejected papers and so it's not necessarily published. So I'll maybe combine that with one or two other comments and throw it to the panel and see who wants to comment on these. And then from Cooper that's related to this which is, are there any good examples of journals that are already increasing transparency and editorial practices, which journals and publishers are moving in the right direction so I'd love to hear from people about that. And there was another question about whether people know about misbehavior and peer review for grants and whether funding agencies ever engaged in this kind of editing you know so it's just editing. So what are some examples maybe those questions of like what are some examples of journals or funding agencies doing things right or wrong, and what what might help and I'll throw that to any of the panelists that want to address those issues. Well I'll take the first pass. I mean, so I think that the BMJ actually has been a kind of leader in this for many years and that's the field that I'm most familiar with. They've published open peer reviews for a very big have signed peer reviews and they've for a very long time and they, you know, publish open peer reviews when they as well, the BMC series of journals do that. We had this long conversations about doing this at plus when I first started and to be honest, back then it wasn't anything that people willing to consider and so we, you know, pick one battle at a time we were fighting a battle on open access so that was the battle that we chose to fight there. I think increasingly of the view that, you know, with us I mean that these things should be published they should be open. And I think that, you know, they don't have to necessarily be signed but they make it's a huge step towards transparency and come just accountability. I don't think editors have a role themselves in holding each other accountable. And that's one of the purposes of cope is that you know you raise the norms within the profession and you know professional include you know, editors who do as academics. You have to understand what good behavior looks like and and that is often, you know, a lot of people who come into being an editor to be honest, don't get a lot of mentorship and I think that's again some one of the thing that professional organizations like cope can help to do. Does anyone else want to jump in something I was going to mention was in that same survey that we did. I think of the respondents that we had the general editors and most of which were lead editors, I think something like 35 or 40% said they were happy with the way that they were conducting peer review so a lot of people seem to be set and content with the way that they're operating. And then of the people who said that they were intent on making some changes most often when it comes to things like transparency so taking blinding as an issue they want to do increase anonymity, not open it. And some of the things that I had seen on that front tended to be a fear of alienating reviewers given how difficult it is at the moment to get reviewers. I think there's there's a fear that by opening up or becoming more transparent it makes your life more difficult in getting reviewers to review for you. Something that I had noticed on this note. Yeah, I think there's now some perical data on this I mean it's all bit hard to interpret but I think the evidence so far suggests that it doesn't make much of a difference. There's no transparent review there's ones where authors can opt in or out and reviewers are just told which situation they're in if their reviews will be posted publicly if the papers accepted or not, or others where it's up to the reviewers to opt in or out and authors have no say in it. And then there's some journals like the journal I'm editor of a collaborate which just require transparent review it's not optional. The issue of like the tension between masking the identities of authors versus transparent review I think they're often conflated but they're pretty orthogonal you can publish the peer review history regardless of what you decide to do about whether reviewers identities stay hidden or authors identity stay hidden or not. So I think we should distinguish between openness and transparency about the content of the reviews and editors letters versus the identities of the people behind them. We did jump in panelists if you have any other thoughts. Another question someone asked is, should distinction be made between stealth editing of reviews and transparent editing so if you fix the type of for example but bracket it. And I think that's definitely. It's very, it's good to be more transparent about it. I think another, there's kind of different degrees of positions about what's okay and my own personally is that I think you should always get the reviewers consent before editing. I could imagine. So, part of my reason for having a pretty extreme views it's such a slippery slope and seeing George Marco ladies say that he still continues to edit reviews for inappropriate comments I'm like I don't trust your judgment anymore. And it really makes me feel like we shouldn't leave it up to individual editors judgment so even something like a typo now I think I would try to err on the side of just either not fixing it. If it's too much trouble to go to the trouble of contacting the reviewer or contacting the reviewer if it's a big enough type of that I want to fix it then make sure the reviewers on board and I leave no room for motivated reasoning on my part to be like I'm just fixing a type of I have a very brief thought on that in the new guidelines I had mentioned about you know that it's okay in some instances change tone. But he was thinking that if editors were to go ahead and do that then it makes it quite difficult for people to actually study how common some of these actions also. So there are obviously some some data into into more nastier reports and trying to get an understanding of that and if we were to edit these. It might make it difficult to kind of get a get a grip on how common or uncommon some of these issues are. I also think the line between tone and substance is so blurry, I just don't trust humans to rely on that distinction. Well, I just made one quick comment on that is that you know, having you know seen lots of reviews, I've got to say editors. I'm sorry, all reviewers often don't don't very nice to put to find a point on it. And as an editor, I think one of your jobs is to is to kind of act as the, you know, negotiator between the reviewers and the authors and you know I often used to write editors letters that kind of said, you know, despite what X says we think why. We had we did used to have discussions about you know the kind of tone of reviewers and in the end what we did was if people were unnecessarily rude we would just never use them again. But you know it's a really difficult thing to do you know we've rarely, if ever edited reviews I mean actually can't remember ever doing it. But you know I did feel incredibly uncomfortable passing on just frankly nasty reviews to authors, you know which unfortunately is more common than you'd hope really. Yeah, I think sometimes editorial misconduct arises out of editors feeling that their hands are tied and that, like in the case of rings paper, maybe George Markleady's was justified in rejecting the paper sorry rank. And maybe Fiona's review is wrong and the other reviewers right but he just needed to own that decision and say despite one positive review I'm going to reject it for these reasons. And so I feel like sometimes it's just so easy way out instead of fully standing up to reviewers or authors or whoever you stand up to. That's exactly right it's about standing it you know we used to say this all the time you're the editor you're the one that makes the decision you have to own the decision and you know the review you can't hide behind reviewers. All right, I think there was a question about where people can find the results of the poll if they're not on slack. Maybe Dan can quickly answer that. I'm not sure whether this year whether the meta science symposium is created an OSF page if they have. I'll post it on there. I'm not sure if there's another better way of doing I have your email address with all of the attendees. Yeah well absolutely please. Maybe one of us I can tweet it out if that's okay or do you not want it. I'll treat it out from the slack. Either or on slack I don't know what to tell you. Any last thoughts in the last minute we have. Thanks rank for joining us so late. And thank you everybody. I think that wraps up our session. Okay, I think that's it. I'll close it for you. Thanks everyone for a great session. I'll just put in the chat that if you want to continue the discussion on all this topics. Just putting in the chat the link to the limo site, where you can do some for networking with everybody. And I think the next is a half hour networking session now and then otherwise, but to see as many of you as possible for tomorrow is a three of no size 2021. So thanks everyone for joining everyone. Thank you.


with Salaman Rushdie. For those of you who don't know who Salaman Rushdie is and don't know the history here, Salaman Rushdie is a well-known author, best-selling author. He's one of the most famous, probably, novel writers of the late 20th, early 21st century. He published his first novel. There was a big success in 1981 and in 1988 he published a novel called Satanic Verses. The novel imagines a modernized Muhammad. It presents a certain view of Islam that many Muslims found offensive. Indeed, Salaman Rushdie, who was born in India to a secular Muslim family, and I think has stated that he himself is an atheist, but grew up secular, but found a Muslim background. The book was first banned in India of all places and then abandoned in almost all Muslim countries. In 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa. A fatwa is a declaration of law, declaring, basically putting a price on the head of Salaman Rushdie, declaring it a an apostle, an enemy of Islam, and putting a price, I think was three million dollars, three million dollars on his head. What's interesting is the fatwa, this has never been rescinded. The supreme leader of Iran, the current supreme leader of Iran, it's a different supreme leader, has not rescinded that. And apostate, not apostle, thank you, apostate, an infidel, and apostate. Apostate is worse. Somebody is born Muslim and returns against the religion is the worst for them. Indeed, a foundation that is linked to the authorities in Iran that's linked to the to the administration, even though so-called the government has distanced itself from the fatwa. Fatwa has never been rescinded. And since then, it's been increased.  It's I think it stands right now three and a half million dollars off anybody who kills Salaman Rushdie. You know, this is while this fatwa was was delivered by a Shiite authority and by the Shiite government, you know, supreme leader of Iran. This is a fatwa that was picked up by Sunni Muslims as well. It was a fatwa that was that has animated many Muslims for a very long time. You know, a little bit of a history when when this fatwa came out in 1989, it not only put a price on the head of Salaman Rushdie, but it also basically was a death warrant, in a sense, to anybody who had anything to do with this book. So publishers all over the world, translators, and anybody who publicized the book, advertised the book, tried to sell the book, booksellers, and so on. Even in New York, the publisher of Salaman Rushdie's English Trans, I guess, American publication of The Satanic Versus was sent threatening letters, letters to threaten the lives of the publisher. And a couple of bookstores in in New York, if I remember right, were firebombed because in their front windows, they carried a version of The Satanic Versus. At the time, George Bush Sr. was president, and the response of George Bush was basically to do nothing. John reminds me, but yes, I'll just just give you a little bit more background. The Japanese translator of The Satanic Versus was murdered, knife stabbing, again, because of his association with that. And let me just see, I thought there was one other event that I wanted to highlight. Yeah, so and again, publishers have been threatened. The Norwegian publisher was shot and seriously wounded in the early 1990s. So the Japanese translator was stabbed to death also in the early 1990s. So this is not theoretical.  No, this Muslims all over the world took this seriously. Salaman Rushdie himself, himself has been attacked in the past. For nine years, he went basically into hiding, not disclosed at no public events, was hidden away probably somewhere in the UK. He's a citizen, both of the UK and the United States today. But I was saying that the Bush administration at the time basically did nothing. It, you know, ignored the Fatwa. Basically said something to the fact of, and this is true of the Muslim cartoons later on, Bush Jr. said the same thing. Basically said something to the extent of, yeah, you really shouldn't insult religion. It really isn't a good thing. We protect free speech and we believe in free speech, but you really shouldn't do it.  It's not nice, right? This is the Bush administration, right? Tough, the tough British Bush administration. At the time, the Armenian Institute and Lena Peekoff put out a full page ad, I think in the New York Times, full page ad denouncing the Bush administration basically viewing this as viewing the attitude as a betrayal of the First Amendment. The First Amendment, I believe, requires demands of the government to protect us from threats against our speech, from violence against us in a sense by threatening the book publisher, the American book publisher, put aside at the time, I don't think Salman Rushdie was an American citizen, but the book publisher, certainly was, is basically an act of war by the Iranian government. The Iranian government threatened US citizens. It threatened American citizens. And as such, that in and of itself was an act of war that Lena Peekoff at the time said that, you know, the United States was cowardly and was defaulting on its responsibility to protect the First Amendment. Okay, it's it. Mark says the New York state trooper just said the name of the stalker is Hadi Matar. Matar, very likely Muslim, you know, would be interesting if he's Iranian or just just Muslim or broadly. And yeah, I'd be interested, I'd be interested in knowing what the relationship there, what the relationship there actually is. So it's difficult to do these shows on a laptop. There's just so much going on in the screen is. Yeah, but but notice this that state, the trooper also said there's no indication of a motive at this time. Rushdie is still in surgery. That's not a good sign that it's still in surgery. Okay, so Hadi Matar, how to tell what kind of a name that is, maybe somebody can Google the name and see if there's any indication of the origins, but no indication of a motive at this time. I mean, really, the guy didn't provide you with a motive, didn't say why he did it. I'd be surprised. So Rushdie has been in hiding, but about nine about, you know, so that was he had basically from 1989 until the late 1990s. And then he came out of hiding and he said, look, I'm not willing to live in fear. I mean, he was he took a very courageous position. He said, I'm not willing to live in fear. I'm going to live my life normally. I'm going to do public events. I'm going to continue to write books and continue to live. And I won't let these people cower me. And he continued and he continued to speak out against the violent Islamists. He was outspoken after 9 11. I've got this, you know, quote from him about free speech. He says, nobody has a right to not be offended. The right doesn't exist in any declaration I've ever read. If you offended, it is your problem. That's Solomon Rushdie. And I agree completely, obviously. So, you know, Rushdie has in the early days, I think in the 2000s, particularly after 9 11, and particularly when the Danish cartoons came out and Charlie Hebdo was attacked and there was a lot of violence against people who spoke up against Islam. Rushdie used to show up in public events with significant security. But I'd say the last 10 years or so, maybe less, he's dropped the security. And at this event, in I think it's upstate New York, he had no security. I mean, there was one security guard there, just a kind of a regular public event security guard. I don't think there was a security detail assigned to him. I don't think there were any particular security measures taking at the event. I doubt bags were checked and things like that. Metal detectors, things like that. And it looks like he was seated, being interviewed by the host. And this guy just jumped out. He had something over his face. I don't know why he was trying to hide his face because he was going to get caught. But he jumped up from his seat, ran onto the stage before anybody could stop him and just started stabbing at Rushdie. He got a number of stab wounds to the neck, which is pretty bad, depending on how deep it went. And the assumption is he's lost a lot of blood. But he's been in surgery for a long time. So there must have been some real damage done there, also to the chest. So while he was alive, breathing, he had a pulse when he was put on the helicopter and flown to the hospital. Let's hope, all we can do, I guess, is hope that he will survive this and survive it whole without any permanent damage, but truly horrific, a horrific attack by what appears to be somebody fulfilling the fadwa, living up to the fadwa and acting on it. This has been a real problem with Islamism since 1989. The thing is that they think they can get away with it. They think they can get away with it. We see it over and over and over again. So Rushdie was really only the beginning. But you saw it when the Danish cartoons came out. And why do I say they think they can get away with it? Because the Muslim world went crazy. They burnt buildings. They killed people. They destroyed property all over the world, particularly in their own countries, but all over the world. They threatened the cartoonists, some of the cartoonists that are actually being attacked. And most almost no American newspapers would show the Danish cartoons. And the Danish cartoons were condemned. Again, George Bush Jr. said he shouldn't offend religion. He wishes they hadn't done it. It really isn't appropriate. So in a sense, taking about violence is inappropriate and so on.  And as a consequence, I think they continue, the Muslims continue to be, the Islamists continue to be emboldened. For years, the publisher of the Danish cartoon would travel with massive security, with significant security, to protect him. I think he's dropped in the last few years the security, maybe now with the stabbing of Solomon Rushdie, he'll bring security back. But it really is, it's been horrific. And then of course, and then of course, you got the, you got the in 2015, it's not that long ago, you got the murder of the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo, again, because they dared to draw cartoons of the, you know, of the, of Muhammad. So what has the West done as a response? Nothing, coward, right? So I remember when Charlie Hebdo happened, and millions of people went out on the streets in Paris and was that, I am Charlie Hebdo, they all, you know, had this chant, I am Charlie Hebdo. And they made a big deal out of them being Charlie Hebdo. How many of them published the cartoons on their Twitter and their Facebook pages? Almost nobody. How many American magazines, newspapers that put out, yes we, Charlie Hebdo. How many of them published the cartoons that got the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo murdered? None of them. How many actually supported the right to offend Muslims? Almost nobody. And have any Western governments come out forcefully in protecting our right to offend Islam? No. No. So we basically send a message to the Muslim world that we will be coward, that their religion is beyond criticism, that we are willing to let them rampage, let them kill, let them murder, let them threaten, let them fire bomb, let them jump on stages and stab people. And yeah, we'll punish the perpetrator, the direct perpetrator, the immediate perpetrator. But we're not going to inflict any significant cost. We're not going to blame any beyond the particular specific individual. We're not going to defend ourselves against states that promote this kind of terrorism, states that promote this kind of barbarism, states that actually encourage it by giving rewards to people who are engaged in this violence. And as the United States, as leader of the West and the rest of the Western world, has encouraged the perpetuation of this idea that offending Muslims is wrong, that offending Islam is punishable, and that it's okay, or at least not okay, but at least we're not going to get too upset with Muslims who try to raise up arms to so-called defend their profit. So anyway, it's a real tragedy. It's a tragedy that was to be expected. It's a tragedy in a sense that Leonard Peacock in 1989 saw coming. It's a tragedy that could have been avoided. It's a tragedy that I think brings to the forefront the, you know, just the pathetic, the unprincipled nature of the American government and its willingness and ability to protect the individual rights of Americans. You know, what should have America done? I mean, basically it should have said to the Iranians in 1989. Now remember, in my view, Iran was at war with the United States in 1989. It had gone to war in 1979, when they took the American embassy. That's an act of war. They spent the 1980s killing Americans. They killed 244 Marines in Beirut in 1983. They then kidnapped Americans all over the Middle East and killed them during the 1980s. Iran was in a state of war with the United States, but America pretended like nothing was going on, that there was no problem. There was no issue. What should have happened is the United States should have told the Iranians you have 48 hours to ascend this fatwa. You will not threaten the lives. You will not threaten the property of American citizens. And if you do, you know, you will be destroyed.   You don't kill heads of state. You don't.  I would have destroyed the entire religious infrastructure of Iran. There's a whole city dedicated to the study of religion. Homs in Iran, they could have destroyed that city. They could have destroyed every government building in Iran, particularly in 1989. Iran was particularly weak. There's very little they could have done about it. But instead, instead, we did nothing. And I think today's event is a direct consequence of that. And it's sad because not only is it sad because Solomon Wooshti is being attacked and might be might be killed. And my general assessment of Wooshti is he's basically a good guy and certainly doesn't deserve this and whose rights should have been protected. But more than that, it emboldens Islamic terrorism. We, you know, maybe it's been relatively quiet the last few years. But you know, the Charlie Hebdo is not that long ago. It was 2015. So it's only seven years ago. You could see other events like that. You could see an event like this, the stabbing of Wooshti emboldening more people, more nuts, you know, Islamists, Islamic fanatics to do this, to become more violent and to engage in more violence. The terrorist infrastructure has not gone away. There are plenty of them out there. Somebody here says on the chat says that the perpetrator is a Shiite Lebanese, which is which would not be surprising. Remember that the Shiite Lebanese are the allies of the Iranians. The Iranians are big funders of of Shiite Islam in Lebanon. They are supporters of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the Shiite terrorist group that is based in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the terrorist group that actually with Iranian support, funding, training and everything else, they're the ones who executed the attack on the on the Marines barracks in Beirut in in 1983 that killed, I think it was the 244 Marines. I think that's the right number. So you know, when we say it's not surprising, that it would be somebody from Lebanon. It would be interesting to see if he has links to Hezbollah. It would be interesting to see if there's kind of a chain of command, if this is something that that got approved from above or just an individual just lashing out. Well, I mean, an individual lashing out with dangling three and a half million dollars for his family, probably dangled out there by the Iranian regime.  And in tragic and sad, just sad, sad that this can still happen. Sad that it's not surprising that it happened. Sad that this will not change anything. You know what will change? You know what else? You know what the conclusion of this will be? What's the conclusion going to be? What are they going to say? What is the vast majority, pretty much everybody, is going to say is a lesson from the stabbing? What's the lesson? We shouldn't tolerate Islamists. We shouldn't tolerate Iran. We shouldn't tolerate threats. What is the lesson? I mean, the lesson, I think it's obvious that the lesson that will be drawn from this is we need more security. We need more security. We're not going to do anything about the people who are actually responsible for this. We're not going to do anything about the people behind this. We need more security. It's Solomon Rusty's fault because he stopped taking security to talks. He should have been surrounded by five people. And it's it's our fault for not providing with the right kind of security. We'll blame ourselves. And and of course, you know, people will still say, you know, he really shouldn't have written that satanic verses and maybe should have stayed quiet since then. You know, when he was hiding, he was quiet and maybe things were safer then and just, yeah. But more security and less offending, less offending Islam. That's, that's what the lessons learned off in this. And that is truly horrific. It'll be really interesting to see if if Rushdie dies. And I hope he doesn't. But if he dies, it'll be interesting to see one, what is the American government's response going to be to the paying of the 300 and three and a half million dollars fatwa? What will we do when that money is actually paid? Would we then place the responsibility with the entity that's paying the money as a hit, right? They're paying for a hit. And second, what will they do if a Hezbollah connection or any kind of collection to Iranian intelligence or any kind of connection to to Iran or to or to the Hezbollah is found. It's also interesting to point out that over the last few weeks, two other major opponents of the Iranian regime have been attacked and assassination attempts have been attempted on them.  She's she's somebody who who escaped Iran and is in the United States. And she survived an attack and attempted attempted assassination on her. And then the other one is somebody you guys all know. And many of you hate because Donald Trump doesn't like him. And that is John Bolton. I don't know if you read this story, but John Bolton about a week ago, the FBI announced that they had arrested an Iranian, an Iranian linked to the supposedly linked to the Iranian secret, the Iranian security services arrested him for an attempt for an attempt to assassinate John Bolton. So is this a new attempt by the Iranians? Is the Salman Rushdie part of this? Is then a push by the Iranians right now to stir things up in the United States to get rid of their opponents? I think he was going to, was he going to assassinate Mike Pompeo as well? Certainly John Bolton he was going to assassinate. And Bolton is, of course, a huge critic of Iran has been very good on Iran over the years. John Bolton, one of the better, I think one of the better foreign policy thinkers since 9 11. And there you go, right? A woman critic of Iran, John Bolton and Salman Rushdie. There really seems to be a pattern here coming out of Iran. Is Iran ready to be significantly more aggressive? Is Iran ready to ready to take on the United States in a more meaningful sense? You know, this is the same time that Iran supposedly is negotiating a some kind of treaty with the United States to lift the sanctions and to rescind their nuclear program. Is this going to change, you think the Biden administration's approach to the Iranians? Is this going to cause them to be more cautious in negotiating with them? Is this going to cause them to walk away from the negotiating table? I think I'd put money on the fact that no, that that's not the case. So Gary says there's a federal for 300,000 on Bolton and a million on Pompeo. Very interesting. But but yes, the guy who the guy who was going to kill them was arrested. So they caught him. It's too bad this guy wasn't arrested before he got a chance to attack Rushdie. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube, so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


This Arsenal team and the Arsenal fan base are mentally weak and they've got a mistake in them. We will capitalise on that, we will find their weaknesses and we will pummel them. What a ball! Yes! Come on! Oh I'm at it. Yes! Top of the league! Come on! In your face! In your face Arsenal fan TV! In your face DT! Come on mate, that's right! That's how we do it! Come on! That is how we do it! Smash those on the top of the table! So I'll add three defeats on the bounce, united next. Come on! YouTube! Yeah! Think about this! Oh my goodness! Jesus Christ! Oh my word! Slap for it! Soft! Balsam!  So you only got one point from the last four games. You're pulling with the chance to bounce back. It will be if the referees allow it to be. Obviously listen, Baz came in after the last game and he made his feelings known. We didn't want to risk both of us coming in the room because it could have meant both of us being banned. Baz has been banned. And it's up to me to face you a lot today. And as long as the referees do the job then I think we will get a victory today. But as I say, the players I thought we were bleeding against Man United we were just let down by the officiating and if we can get that sorted I think we'll be okay. Is there been any trouble in the training camp? The players are fine. Players, fans are behind us. Everyone's pulling in the right direction. We just, basically we just used cardboard cut out to John Moss for shooting practice and that's sorting that out. No problems at all. We're all in this together. Whether the people above us feel like that we don't know it's been a bad run and we need to team that around very, very quickly. Right, come on. Back home. Made a couple of changes. Well, Donna Cavill is coming in but Charleston's gone out to the left, Bernard. Charleston's gone out to the right. Sorry. Well cost. Well cost being dropped and Bernard is in there so. Dropped? Rested. Yeah, rested so. Come on. Got a flesh in this team up of it. That's all there is. It's just fresh in the look. Just play our football. We'll be able to go back. Oh, we've done it. We've done it. Oh. All right, all right. All right. All right. Didn't touch the ball yet. No. 100% possession, mate. Go. 10. Go. Go on, Donna. I'm lucky. Better. All right, the treat. Better football. Just the treat. And we won't get back in the game. It's okay. It's all right. All right, the free-tuning. Sheen the free-tuning. It's opened up.  There you go. Sharp on its side. She'll break.  Ah, it's off. Come with him. Oh. I beg of it. Scrambling. Oh. Right. Yes. Go on. Go on. Dig on to it. Dig on to it. Dig on. Dig on. Oh. Catch him on the way. Oh, that's it. Better football. Football. Full-fledged. Carving them open here. They've just opened up. Nice little ball in. It's off in here. I beg of it. Oh. Come on. Come on. Let's score off a ship.  Come on, guys. Can you get that? Can you get that? Can you get that? I've got it. So tired. Oh. All right. You've only gone and done them. If you want. If you want. It's titled. In. Titled. It's rather a drop-in mix. then like to be fit. Get in! Better lad. Compose it, hook up time. Yes! Push them over now. We found the gold torch at least in the last couple of games. That's fine, we defend now. We just hang on, get everyone back, we win the game. Come on, we threw it up, English game, that's how we get this. That's just a bit of passion, I thought this was it. Look at that touch. Oh, that was lovely, that. You say lovely, actually terrifying. But yeah, it's in. Okay, remember the shape. The shape's the most important thing, you know. It's okay. Backed off. Patience. All right, all right. All right, don't do the wall can't. Oh, he passed the ball away. Yes, yes. Once he's picked it up, it's laughing. Okay, hi one. I left it.  End to end. Broke quickly, there's the pass, it's a perfect ball. That's why I don't look at that. I'll be honest with you Arsham, probably because I've done that. But do you hit that through ball? Has to right through ball, but no, it's doing well. It's doing well. It gets shuttling, it gets shuttling. It's the run-off. Okay, see, I've got that. I've got that. I am on the outside, I'm trying to stay outside. Can you still, if you want it great touch, well played. You're in it. Bitsies, isn't he? Did he throw himself or was he pushed? A bit above, bit above my head, you know. Come on, we need that second, we need the big win. Big win, big win. Get up as well. Done, Jerry. Yes. All right, all right, all right. Defend it, we defend it. It feels like what's in Heaven. Not the old Heaven. The old Heaven, yeah. I think he just terrified. Come on, Alex. In and out. Come on, Alex, I've done it. Come on. In and out. Stay on track. Guilty. Come on. Oh, that wasn't for him. You'll face that if you want. All right, all right, all right. Okay. I've made the run brilliantly though. We are exactly where we were at the beginning of the second half of the Old Seven. So, we got to lame those lessons. The treat. We have them. The treat, I said, the treat. What did I say? For three, for three, the treat. I did the treat. Did we all change the book? Oh, sorry, sorry. Swinton the wrong man. Relax, all right. I'm not relaxing. I'm chillaxing. I don't know what you're doing. Well, he's pointing, he's pointing. Come on, surely we can get a goal off one of these set pieces. Go on, go. That's it, that's it. Get in. He's literally into the Self might be. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'll behave. No, no, no. Follow you that way. Run them, run them, run them. Just keep it away from them. And run them. And wide if you want. Yeah, well done. That'll do. That'll do. Okay. This is all right. The tension, this is the key. We're dying for that kick, well, we know just Right, get off! Ten minutes. Can we do that mad thing I've seen a game of? Ten minutes. Just wait, just wait. Get down that, someone get down that line for me. Don't go, I'm just going. Throw three of us here. I'll do. Come on, ten minutes. Ten minutes to see this out. We'll get a goal, that'd be the nice thing we can do. I wouldn't. No, no, no, you don't, do you? No, snap, don't. No, no, mean it, no. He's off. He's off. He's off. Is he off? I think he's off. He's off. OK. Michael Keane. Big Mac Keane. Come on. Big Mac Keane. How's he got to this? Big Mac. Yeah, I can't nod off. I don't think he'll ever. Look. He's spun, he's spun, he's spun. That'll do. Back to triangle, back to triangle. Look at here. And then give it. Yes. 88. 18. Come on, win this ball. Win this baseball. Win this baseball. Big Mac. Yes. Curtis. Go on, you've got that. Oh, you jammy. Woke up. Yes. There's William on line. Doesn't matter, William. And I'll run after him. He'll take it off my dead collar. OK. Brilliant. Brilliant dunge in there. Yes. Yes. Yes. He's off. Oh, brilliant. Ah! Where's he got four minutes from? By the way. It's a shout-off. Big win, big win, big win. Yes, Tom. Go on. Oh, I see that. Yeah! Sort it out. Made our way a bit, as always. The healer's done. Much needed three points there. You've got to work out for that one. You pleased? Yeah, delighted with the win. It's been a... Oops. It's been... Yeah, yeah. I don't know. It has been a lot.  Relieved. Especially after the disappointment the last week. I don't want to go over last week's stuff, obviously. But this week, you know, the lads have dug in. Oh. And it's a great three points for us. Ah, it's tremendous. Changed. We changed the side. And I thought we benefited from it. And it was a little bit nearly second half. But you know what? You know, we looked at the stats. We dominated the game. Showed great composure towards the end. And we saw it out. And we've got those three points. Even going down to 10 men again. My freezing. And we're going down to 10 men. And we've hung in there. And we've got that eight points. That's what it's all about. Do you think you can kick on your season from here? We've got to kick on. We've got to. I'm not saying we're going to finish in the Champions League places. But we've got to be aiming for them. And you know, anything more than that is bonus. But for me, Champions League still got to be on. Because this team is good enough. We've had a bit of a rough patch. But hopefully that's behind us now. And we go forward. And we start dominating sides. Because we're good enough. We're good enough. We just let ourselves down. It's just about work. And the left. The left against us. They're all against us. Every single. No. Don't worry. It's just about getting back to the training ground. And working hard. Now building on this. And that's all we've got to say for today. Okay. Thanks guys.