Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: =?UTF-8?Q?Boris_Gour=c3=a9vitch?= <boris@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:20:15 +0200This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------GMBt6FPbXPcXgJYEXPpp1eY0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum4.it.mcgill.ca id 356AKMEF027095 Dear all, I think most of us might start to be a bit exhausted with this=20 discussion which is very interesting though. I'll thus try to be short.=20 I'm just surprised that nobody mentioned (if I read correctly all the=20 discussion) that editors might be the biggest bias here, even more than=20 reviewers. After all, especially in the biggest journals, their role is=20 more than crucial: they might reject the paper even before peer review,=20 with little justification, or push for it to be reviewed and later=20 accepted. Yet, that's the first moment where the reputation of the=20 authors, the personal relationship of the editor with them, the way in=20 which results are presented or packaged, the methods used and the=20 personal view of the editor on the field can heavily bias his judgment=20 and determine the fate of the paper, beyond the intrinsic qualities of=20 the study. That's important because big journals can make a career. How many times did we think that a paper more or less deserved to be in=20 such a big journal (objectively and without jealousy of course =F0=9F=98=85= ) ?=20 That's because one person first judged the manuscript as deserving to be=20 reviewed, before later also weighing up possible mixed reviews as a=20 second step. This is even worse in journals publishing reviews which=20 might be invited or for which reviews are little used. That's also why=20 it's tempting to use preprints. No more frustrations with this system.=20 Anyway, from my point of view, the editor work is less than transparent.=20 Most of them likely do a good job. But we don't even know. Best wishes Boris Le 06/06/2023 =C3=A0 10:57, Peter Harrison a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > Dear all, > > Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is unduly biased by=20 > the reputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that this is an=20 > important problem, but it's only fair to observe that it applies to=20 > preprints too. In a world where we don't have time to read every=20 > preprint, many people will still end up using imperfect proxies for=20 > deciding what to read, such as the reputation of the=20 > authors/institutions. In the absence of a journal's mark of approval,=20 > these imperfect proxies could grow more influential, not less influenti= al. > > Best wishes > Peter > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - > *From:* AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception=20 > <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Helia Relano Iborra=20 > <0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> > *Sent:* 06 June 2023 09:21 > *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> > *Subject:* Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > Dear Brian, all, > > Thank you for a very enriching discussion. I just wanted to counter=20 > Brian=E2=80=99s last email, regarding the neutrality of peer review. Th= ere is=20 > extensive evidence of =E2=80=9Cstatus bias=E2=80=9D in the peer-review = system in=20 > studies comparing single-blind vs double-blind reviews. E.g. Huber et=20 > al. (2022) https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119 or Blank=20 > (1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906. No system (or person) is=20 > free of bias, unfortunately. I think recognizing that these biases=20 > exist and being aware of them when we are reviewing manuscripts can=20 > only make us better reviewers. > > Best, > > Helia. > > =09 > > *Helia Rela=C3=B1o Iborra* > > Postdoc > > Hearing Systems Section > > Department of Health Technology > > heliaib@xxxxxxxx <mailto:heliaib@xxxxxxxx> > > =C3=98rsteds Plads > > Building 352 > > 2800=C2=A0Kgs. Lyngby > > www.dtu.dk/english <https://www.dtu.dk/english> > > *From:*AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception=20 > <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Brian FG Katz (SU) > *Sent:* 6. juni 2023 09:27 > *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > Dear Bob, et al, > > I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent=20 > posts. While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements=20 > (privileges of various sorts" are present in career evolutions,=20 > recruitment committees, promotions, be them academic or corporate, I=20 > must return to the discussion to the topic at hand, in the broad=20 > sense, of the importance of peer-review. > > As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics)=20 > what is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free=20 > rides are given to authors of high reputation (sometime more=20 > scrutiny), nor penalties to young unknowns or unrepresented countries=20 > (sometimes more flexibility is given). If the arguement for=20 > publication is unpersuasive, it is solely on the merit of the=20 > presentation of the work. I say it this way because again it is only=20 > what is on the page that is reviewed. The work itself may be of high=20 > standards, but a work is reviewed by what is stated, not what is=20 > intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. Specific knowledge=20 > of the author is really only needed to assure lack of direct conflicts=20 > of interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered the=20 > background,=C2=A0 academic or career history of an author in accepting = or=20 > rejecting a manuscript. I would even go so far as to say if one=20 > considers these elements in one's reviews they should probably recuse=20 > themselves from such benevolent activities to the community. > > Finally, returning to the question of arXiv and preprints, where this=20 > all started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole,=20 > but they should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a=20 > scientific blog or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same=20 > value, or represent the same rigor of critique, that a journal article=20 > has passed. Thie difference is clear. However, it is only really=20 > relevant in a few circumstances: as a substantive citation in another=20 > journal article, in an academic/research career application/review, or=20 > a project proposal (a version of the previous point). If one doesn't=20 > require these elements, and that is a choice, then one isn't limited=20 > by the means one chooses to disseminate one's work. No one has=20 > critiqued the use of arxiv and the like, per se,=C2=A0 but if one is=20 > competing on the quality of one's work, the process of peer-review is=20 > the widely accepted passage for some semblance of quality, for which=20 > no other alternative currently exists. A review committee cannot be=20 > expected to read every article, let alone the comments section, and be=20 > required to form an opinion. > > This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also the=20 > motivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of=20 > some journals from being "acceptable" is those situations. Such rapid=20 > publication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a=20 > reputable journal, though with fees, and rightly so with regards to=20 > scientific scrutiny. One is free to use them for what they are, but=20 > one should not make claims that they are anything more. > > At least, that is my perspective. > > -- > > Brian FG Katz > > Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique > > Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, Institut =E2=88=82'Alembert > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: "McMurray, Bob" <bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx> > > Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00) > > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > Hi Colleagues > > I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I think= our=20 > field is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publishing=20 > and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s best= any more.=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0Its been fun to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversat= ion=20 > unfold amonst my esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both junior and senior =E2= =80=93 and=20 > I=E2=80=99ve learned a lot. > > However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the=20 > need to weigh in on.=C2=A0 They argue that the very nature of scientifi= c=20 > communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and=20 > discrimination. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (pe= rhaps I=20 > was an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s importa= nt. > > Les, I respect your point of view. =C2=A0We should be having these open= and=20 > objective conversations and we should strive for that.=C2=A0 But we als= o=20 > have to recognize that this is an aspirational point of view.=C2=A0 In = my=20 > view, the rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive.=C2=A0 A= =20 > scientific discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convince the=20 > scientific community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,2=20 > and 3).=C2=A0 The rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and methodolog= ical norms,=20 > peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensure that this=20 > persuasion is all geared to some mutually acceptable norms of=20 > objectivity.=C2=A0 It often works and there=E2=80=99s not much better. > > But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should=20 > be). And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their statio= n and=20 > background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to persuade thei= r=20 > colleagues than others.=C2=A0 We commonly associate these issues of=20 > discrimination and positionality with things like race, religion and=20 > gender.=C2=A0 And indeed these things matter =E2=80=93 just look at the= disparities=20 > among the medalists of the ASA and you can see for yourself. > > But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors=20 > extend all throughout academia.=C2=A0 Are some fields privileged?=C2=A0= Are=20 > hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding from a linguist=20 > or a social scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing=20 > science?=C2=A0 What about a finding from a small clinical population (a= =20 > =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field) or an obscure auditory phenomena vs. as = opposed to a=20 > finding based on the core =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound p= roof booth?=20 > =C2=A0Are we more likely to take a finding seriously if it was generate= d by=20 > one of the top universities (in our field) than a second tier state=20 > university?=C2=A0 Or from a new scholar that was trained by one of the = best=20 > vs. an emerging scholar who came to the field more independently?=C2=A0= =20 > What about a person who is changing fields =E2=80=93 migrating, for exa= mple,=20 > from a field like cognitive science to audiology or hearing science?=20 > What about clinical credentialing?=C2=A0 Does that help or harm our cas= es? > > All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument=20 > that is being made and the quality of the data used to support it.=C2=A0= =20 > But we all must admit that they do change how much credence we are=20 > likely to give a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these=20 > differently). Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the me= thods=20 > aren=E2=80=99t clear, but you know how a person was trained, it may be = easier=20 > to trust that the experiments were done right.=C2=A0 But sometimes this= is=20 > just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contributions=20 > from outside what we perceive as the core field. > > But how does this impact scientific publishing? > > Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new=20 > viewpoints and new participants, the view from those people may be=20 > very different than the view from the people at the top.=C2=A0 We shoul= d=20 > listen. People do struggle to gain entry to this field.=C2=A0 I certain= ly=20 > did when I began working in hearing science, despite my training at a=20 > very good cognitive science program. > > Peer review is part of the problem.=C2=A0 It can amplify these biases.=C2= =A0 And=20 > peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new entries =E2=80= =93 its is designed to=20 > help a journal editor decide what to do with a paper. So it often=20 > serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.=C2=A0 OF course, we cannot=20 > dispense with it.=C2=A0 But we should be actively exploring other model= s.=C2=A0=20 > if this new generation of talented, thoughtful, diverse and=20 > enterprising young scholars wants to engage in novel modes of=20 > scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and to contribute= to=20 > these new models. > > theBob > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= du> wrote: > > On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote: > > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution > responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. *** > > There are statements in this thread that cannot go > unchallenged, because they condone and perpetuate harmful > ideas that need to end. Specifically: > 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independ= ent > thinker such that one can express ideas, arguments, > disagreements, etc. with anyone in the field, regardless of > stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D > This statement ignores the multiple power structures that > affect the lives and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upp= er > echelon=E2=80=99 in the field. Expressing an idea involves risk= when > your position is precarious. Adapting to and weighing that > risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a > blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because I=E2=80=99m so g= reat at > science, but because my culture gives me unearned respect > because of my demographics. For people like me (and, I will > note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in a culture > that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t= belong. > > > I could not disagree more.=C2=A0 The suggestion that, within our fi= eld, > different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have > productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of > status is, as I see it, just plain nonsense. Expressing an idea > involves risk?=C2=A0 Really, in our field of auditory science?=C2=A0= I can > give plenty of counterexamples to such an assertion. > > > > 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status= .=C2=A0 It > was not because they had friends, it was not because people > liked them.=C2=A0 It was because they established a track-recor= d of > contributions that the field, in general, held in very high > regard.=E2=80=9D > This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship > bias and which ignores everything we know about how people act > in real life. Science is done by humans, who have personal > interests, biases, and who live within a culture where status > is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision we make > is filtered by these factors, which allow some people (like > me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at every career > stage, simply because of how they look, who their friends are, > and where they grew up. They are more likely to have papers > accepted, to be selected for podium presentations, to have a > job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to > be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to > positions of leadership, and to be given favorable treatment > in the workplace. To be taken seriously. If we pretend that > these advantages are ALL due to the scientific merit of one=E2=80= =99s > work, we are characterizing scientists as some species > entirely separate from the rest of humanity. > > Again, theoretical, social drivel.=C2=A0 Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Green= , > Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on. > > > > 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to = the > very same standard=E2=80=9D > We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of > who wrote it. But importantly, the influence of stature > doesn=E2=80=99t need to be explicitly suggested in order to act= ually > take place. Similar to the last point, the idea of equal > standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that > allows people like me to feel superior because I can attribute > my success to my own hard work and merit, even though many > factors that led to that success were unearned. > > Again, your theoretical musing.=C2=A0 Not the reality in auditory > science that I have seen. > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to > consider that others have a different set of constraints, and > that our definitions of merit are tailored to suit those who > are already enjoying a wide variety of privileges. Consider > the forces that lead authors to think that preprints are > useful, and also whether you are facing the same expectations > and constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at > the apparent generational divide on this issue - let's figure > out why. Graduate admissions and fellowship review > increasingly expect a publication record that far exceeds > anything that would have been expected of the reviewers when > they were at that same career stage. For various reasons, the > timeline of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating > this, it is no longer enough to simply conduct a good study; > one must also curate a data management and sharing plan that > includes open-access data and documented code. One must learn > and conduct the latest statistical techniques that their > advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much > broader set of literature that includes a lot of garbage. To > compete for stable employment, younger scholars need an > internet presence and must learn to incorporate inclusive > language in their writing, even if that were not part of their > training. They need to express how their work contributes to > the reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by > some of the people who are doing the harm. > > > None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified > assertion, is an argument for shifting the weight of dissemination > of work toward non-refereed open access.=C2=A0 By the way, when was= it > the case that a solid knowledge of statistical techniques was > unnecessary?=C2=A0 Hey, you don't have to wire together analog > equipment to generate your signals! > > > Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the > multiple barriers that I described above. But they have > tangible value, and reflect adaptation to a changing academic > landscape, rather than reflecting some loss of =E2=80=9Cstandar= ds=E2=80=9D > that are designed to protect those already at the top, and > which were established under an entirely different system of > constraints. > > > Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) > quicker feedback on your work from a wider variety of scholars > who might not have been invited to review, simply because they > were not in the network of the associate editor. These factors > are often yoked together; the channels that spread awareness > of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the same channels > that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The > tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channels > probably reinforces the generational divide on this thread. I > assure you that the comments I've received from people > enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had meaningful > influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider > variety of people whose opinions have been historically > discounted. Experienced reviewers will always have a place in > our scientific discourse, but to discount the benefit and > potential of preprints is to be willfully detached from our > current reality. > > > I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit > they can confer. > > > Matt > > --=20 > > *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | *Professor Emeritus > > Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School > of Medicine > 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 > Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 > > > --=20 > > Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD > > Associate Professor > > Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences > > University of Minnesota > --------------GMBt6FPbXPcXgJYEXPpp1eY0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------ehDXkC9RvnEGeLIm8XuzN0vd" --------------ehDXkC9RvnEGeLIm8XuzN0vd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum4.it.mcgill.ca id 356AKMEF027095 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF= -8"> </head> <body> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Dear all,</div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">I think most of us might start to be a bit exhausted with this discussion which is very interesting though. I'll thus try to be short. I'm just surprised that nobody mentioned (if I read correctly all the discussion) that editors might be the biggest bias here, even more than reviewers. After all, especially in the biggest journals, their role is more than crucial: they might reject the paper even before peer review, with little justification, or push for it to be reviewed and later accepted. Yet, that's the first moment where the reputation of the authors, the personal relationship of the editor with them, the way in which results are presented or packaged, the methods used and the personal view of the editor on the field can heavily bias his judgment and determine the fate of the paper, beyond the intrinsic qualities of the study. That's important because big journals can make a career.<br> </div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">How many times did we think that a paper more or less deserved to be in such a big journal (objectively and without jealousy of course =F0=9F=98=85) ? That's = because one person first judged the manuscript as deserving to be reviewed, before later also weighing up possible mixed reviews as a second step. This is even worse in journals publishing reviews which might be invited or for which reviews are little used. That's also why it's tempting to use preprints. No more frustrations with this system. Anyway, from my point of view, the editor work is less than transparent. Most of them likely do a good job. But we don't even know.<br> </div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Best wishes<br> </div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Boris<br> </div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix"><br> </div> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Le 06/06/2023 =C3=A0 10:57, Peter Harr= ison a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:LO6P265MB647396514036BEAC06534252AD52A@xxxxxxxx= PROD.OUTLOOK.COM"> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DU= TF-8"> <style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;">P {margin-top:0;ma= rgin-bottom:0;}</style> <div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=3D"elementToProof"> <span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=3D"ContentPasted0"= >Dear all,</span> <div style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <br class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </div> <div style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=3D"ContentPasted0"= > Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is unduly biased by the reputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that this is an important problem, but it's only fair to observe that it applies to preprints too. In a world where we don't have time to read every preprint, many people will still end up using imperfect proxies for deciding what to read, such as the reputation of the authors/institutions. In the absence of a journal's mark of approval, these imperfect proxies could grow more influential, not less influential.</div> <div style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <br class=3D"ContentPasted0"> </div> <div style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=3D"ContentPasted0"= > Best wishes</div> <span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=3D"ContentPasted0"= >Peter</span><br> </div> <hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex=3D"-1"> <div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt= " face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= S.MCGILL.CA"><AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx></a> on behalf of Helia Rela= no Iborra <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:000001= 7f74f788f8-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx"><0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-requ= est@xxxxxxxx></a><br> <b>Sent:</b> 06 June 2023 09:21<br> <b>To:</b> <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto= :AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= S.MCGILL.CA"><AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx></a><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust</font> <div>=C2=A0</div> </div> <style>@xxxxxxxx {font-family:Helvetica}@xxxxxxxx {font-family:"Cambria Math"}@xxxxxxxx {font-family:Calibri}p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal {margin:0cm; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}a:link, span.x_MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline}span.x_gmailsignatureprefix {}span.x_EmailStyle20 {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext}.x_MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt}div.x_WordSection1 {}</style> <div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" lang=3D"DA"> <div class=3D"x_WordSection1"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">Dear Brian, all,</spa= n></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">=C2=A0</span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">Thank = you for a very enriching discussion. I just wanted to counter Brian=E2=80=99s last email, regarding the neutrality of pee= r review. There is extensive evidence of =E2=80=9Cstatus bias= =E2=80=9D in the peer-review system in studies comparing single-blind vs double-blind reviews. </span><span style=3D"">E.g. Huber et al. </span><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">(2022) <a href=3D"https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119" originalsrc=3D"https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119" shash=3D"K1k26X/XfsSehXM7nU9KR564kg2XdR/5sFF13ieIoZ+j1+k7oFqe1EMJGlzYTTix= idToIgvecov/co0f2Q9oLMxTePJhyA2Un9iNO7aPGtDwNlZVXP+0mKjudkc7Q2ClStZYaOALA= e6q/LQSqjJ51raf0bmEtDI+oD7zwUkHq+c=3D" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext"> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119</a> or Blank (1991) <a href=3D"https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906" originalsrc=3D"https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906" shash=3D"mWKhf2S25aGIr1ZWDfKfbEKVZPoi7b/7w5EQJFoGIHxB0zgMh8GaWmc9OoQNhiro= 7cWC8nrvq4b12XfFMf+yVLa/g0jHVaofeISYfwQLiGC7pWC4/9sP9rXmTpQuKOQMYMa1ndjfZ= KUyZusao9JcYAs3ZNaLNgzcozLMWWxtwUc=3D" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext"> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906</a>. No system (or person) is free of bias, unfortunately. I think recognizing that these biases exist and being aware of them when we are reviewing manuscripts can only make us better reviewers. </span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0= </span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">Best,<= /span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">Helia.= </span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang=3D"EN-US">=C2= =A0</span></p> <table class=3D"x_MsoNormalTable" style=3D"width:300.0pt" width=3D"400" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0= "> <tbody> <tr> <td style=3D"width:300.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"400"> <table class=3D"x_MsoNormalTable" style=3D"width:300.0p= t; border-collapse:collapse" width=3D"400" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style=3D"width:37.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"50" valign=3D"top"> <table class=3D"x_MsoNormalTable" style=3D"width:37.5pt" width=3D"50" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D= "0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style=3D"width:37.5pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"50" valign=3D"top= "> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><img id=3D"x__x0000_i1026" style=3D"width:.375in; height:.5416in" data-outlook-trace=3D"F:1|T:1" src=3D"cid:part1.FJgj0dxC.AXPeWrxP@xxxxxxxx= pi314.net" class=3D"" width=3D"36" height=3D"5= 2" border=3D"0"></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350" valign=3D"top"> <table class=3D"x_MsoNormalTable" style=3D"width:262.5pt; border-collapse:collapse" width=3D"350" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D= "0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:120%"><b><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt; line-height:120%; font-family:"Arial",san= s-serif; color:black">Helia Rela=C3=B1o Ib= orra</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black">Postdoc</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black" lang=3D"EN-US">Hearing Systems Section</span></p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black" lang=3D"EN-US">Departm= ent of Health Technology </span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black"><a href=3D"mailto:heliaib@xxxxxxxx" moz-do-not-send=3D"true"><span style=3D"color:black">heliaib@xxxxxxxx= tu.dk</span></a> </span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black">=C3=98rsteds Plads</sp= an></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black">Building 352</span></p= > </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black">2800=C2=A0Kgs. Lyngby<= /span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style=3D"width:262.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" width=3D"350"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-= serif; color:black"><a href=3D"https://www.dtu.dk/englis= h" originalsrc=3D"https://www.dtu.dk/english" shash=3D"U0WIGQT8zjxtx2OdlIygyLuafV0+47wr1ExkWro/xYJpieeoohdGa8FAASH15OJS= MgbVWcIjbjj1iEbrA2QvaPUdvRIGf3KOZF/R0cHAmNZzvpfefoiCoZ5zoEdFd5x1jKZ0872Cb= vfhA+lRfhAUHUM4aPyVKwzE79pSvtcJJug=3D" moz-do-not-send=3D"true"><span style=3D"color:black">www.dtu.d= k/english</span></a></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"" lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0= </span></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US">From:</spa= n></b><span lang=3D"EN-US"> AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"m= ailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx"><AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brian FG Katz (SU)<br> <b>Sent:</b> 6. juni 2023 09:27<br> <b>To:</b> <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D= "mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust</span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">Dear Bob, et al,</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent posts. While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements (privileges of various sorts" are present in career evolutions, recruitment committees, promotions, be them academic or corporate, I must return to the discussion to the topic at hand, in the broad sense, of the importance of peer-review.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics) what is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free rides are given to authors of high reputation (sometime more scrutiny), nor penalties to young unknowns or unrepresented countries (sometimes more flexibility is given). If the arguement for publication is unpersuasive, it is solely on the merit of the presentation of the work. I say it this way because again it is only what is on the page that is reviewed. The work itself may be of high standards, but a work is reviewed by what is stated, not what is intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. Specific knowledge of the author is really only needed to assure lack of direct conflicts of interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered the background,=C2=A0 academic or career history of an author i= n accepting or rejecting a manuscript. I would even go so far as to say if one considers these elements in one's reviews they should probably recuse themselves from such benevolent activities to the community.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">Finally, returning to the question o= f arXiv and preprints, where this all started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole, but they should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a scientific blog or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same value, or represent the same rigor of critique, that a journal article has passed. Thie difference is clear. However, it is only really relevant in a few circumstances: as a substantive citation in another journal article, in an academic/research career application/review, or a project proposal (a version of the previous point). If one doesn't require these elements, and that is a choice, then one isn't limited by the means one chooses to disseminate one's work. No one has critiqued the use of arxiv and the like, per se,=C2=A0 = but if one is competing on the quality of one's work, the process of peer-review is the widely accepted passage for some semblance of quality, for which no other alternative currently exists. A review committee cannot be expected to read every article, let alone the comments section, and be required to form an opinion.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also the motivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of some journals from being "acceptable" is those situations. Such rapid publication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a reputable journal, though with fees, and rightly so with regards to scientific scrutiny. One is free to use them for what they are, but one should not make claims that they are anything more.</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">At least, that is my perspective.</p= > </div> <div id=3D"x_composer_signature"> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">--</p> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">Brian FG Katz</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, In= stitut =E2=88=82'Alembert</p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal">=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">-------- Original message --------</span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">From: "McMurray, Bob" <<a href=3D"mailto:bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext= ">bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx</a>> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00) </span> </p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">To: <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext= "> AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust </span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:black">=C2=A0</= span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Hi Colleagues</p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">I=E2=80=99ve been wat= ching from the wings on this discussion as I think our field is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publishing and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think= I know what=E2=80=99s best any more. =C2=A0=C2=A0Its been fun = to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversation unfold amonst my esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both junior and senior =E2= =80=93 and I=E2=80=99ve learned a lot.</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the need to weigh in on.=C2=A0 They argue that the very nat= ure of scientific communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and discrimination. I don=E2=80=99= t think I realized this till recently (perhaps I was an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s impo= rtant.</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Les, I respect your point of view. =C2=A0We should be having these open and objective conversations and we should strive for that.=C2=A0 But we also have to recognize that this is = an aspirational point of view.=C2=A0 In my view, the rheto= ric of science is not objective. Its persuasive.=C2=A0 A scientific discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convince the scientific community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,2 and 3).=C2=A0 The rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and methodological norms,= peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensure that this persuasion is all geared to some mutually acceptable norms of objectivity.=C2=A0 It often works a= nd there=E2=80=99s not much better. </p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">But fundamentally thi= s is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should be).=C2=A0 And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of t= heir station and background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a b= etter place to persuade their colleagues than others.=C2=A0 W= e commonly associate these issues of discrimination and positionality with things like race, religion and gender.=C2=A0 And indeed these things matter =E2=80=93 = just look at the disparities among the medalists of the ASA and you can see for yourself. </p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors extend all throughout academia.=C2=A0 Are some fields privileged?=C2=A0 Are hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding from a linguist or a social scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing science?=C2=A0 What about a finding from a smal= l clinical population (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field) o= r an obscure auditory phenomena vs. as opposed to a finding based on the core =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound= proof booth? =C2=A0Are we more likely to take a finding seriously if= it was generated by one of the top universities (in our field) than a second tier state university?=C2=A0 Or fr= om a new scholar that was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who came to the field more independently?=C2=A0 What about a person who is changin= g fields =E2=80=93 migrating, for example, from a field l= ike cognitive science to audiology or hearing science?=C2=A0 What about clinical credentialing?=C2=A0 Does that help= or harm our cases? </p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">All of these things h= ave nothing to do with the objective argument that is being made and the quality of the data used to support it.=C2=A0 But we all must admit that they do change how much credence we are likely to give a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differently).=C2=A0 Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the = methods aren=E2=80=99t clear, but you know how a person was tra= ined, it may be easier to trust that the experiments were done right.=C2=A0 But sometimes this is just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contributions from outside what we perceive as the core field.</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">But how does this imp= act scientific publishing?</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Matt makes the valuab= le point that as our field opens up to new viewpoints and new participants, the view from those people may be very different than the view from the people at the top.=C2=A0 We should listen. People do struggle to gain entry to this field.=C2=A0 I certainly did when I began working in hearing science, despite my training at a very good cognitive science program. </p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Peer review is part o= f the problem.=C2=A0 It can amplify these biases.=C2=A0 A= nd peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new en= tries =E2=80=93 its is designed to help a journal editor decide what to do with a paper. So it often serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.=C2=A0 OF course, we cannot dispense w= ith it.=C2=A0 But we should be actively exploring other models.=C2=A0 if this new generation of talented, thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to engage in novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and to contr= ibute to these new models.</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">theBob</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 a= t 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <<a href=3D"mailto:lbernstein@xxxxxxxx" moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freete= xt">lbernstein@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border:none; border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-top:5.0pt; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"text-align:center= ; background:#D5EAFF" align=3D"center"> <span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt; color:red">*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***</span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged, because they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Specifically:<br> 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently conf= ident and independent thinker such that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with anyone in the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D<br> This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the lives and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in the field. Expressing an = idea involves risk when your position is precarious. Adapting to and weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because I=E2=80=99m so great at= science, but because my culture gives me unearned respect because of my demographics. For people like me (and, I will note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in a culture that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t belong.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= ><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">I could not disagree more.=C2=A0 The suggestion that, within our field, different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, as I see it, just plain nonsense.=C2=A0 Expressing an idea involves risk?=C2=A0 Really, in = our field of auditory science?=C2=A0 I can give plenty = of counterexamples to such an assertion.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br> <br> 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers = earned such status.=C2=A0 It was not because they ha= d friends, it was not because people liked them.=C2=A0 It was because they established a track-record of contributions that the field, in general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D<br> This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and which ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science is done by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live within a culture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision we make is filtered by these factors, which allow some people (like me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at every career stage, simply because of how they look, who their friends are, and where they grew up. They are more likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium presentations, to have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positions of leadership, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. To be taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantages are ALL due to the scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are character= izing scientists as some species entirely separate from the rest of humanity.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= ><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Again= , theoretical, social drivel.=C2=A0 Lloyd Jeffress, D= ave Green, Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on.=C2=A0 </span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br> <br> 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone = should be held to the very same standard=E2=80=9D<br= > We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it. But importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be explicitly suggest= ed in order to actually take place. Similar to the last point, the idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that allows people like me to feel superior because I can attribute my success to my own hard work and merit, even though many factors that led to that success were unearned.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= ><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Again= , your theoretical musing.=C2=A0 Not the reality in auditory science that I have seen.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D <br> What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to consider that others have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of merit are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety of privileges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that preprints are useful, and also whether you are facing the same expectations and constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at the apparent generational divide on this issue - let's figure out why. Graduate admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record that far exceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers when they were at that same career stage. For various reasons, the timeline of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also curate a data management and sharing plan that includes open-access data and documented code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techniques that their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set of literature that includes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable employment, younger scholars need an internet presence and must learn to incorporate inclusive language in their writing, even if that were not part of their training. They need to express how their work contributes to the reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some of the people who are doing the harm.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= ><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assertion, is an argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work toward non-refereed open access.=C2=A0 By the way, when wa= s it the case that a solid knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary?=C2=A0 Hey, you don't ha= ve to wire together analog equipment to generate your signals!</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br> Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple barriers that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflect adaptation to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some loss of =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that= are designed to protect those already at the top, and which were established under an entirely different system of constraints.</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0 <br> Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedback on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been invited to review, simply because they were not in the network of the associate editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels that spread awareness of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the same channels that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channels probably reinforces the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I've received from people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had meaningful influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider variety of people whose opinions have been historically discounted. Experienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientific discourse, but to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to be willfully detached from our current reality.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= ><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br> I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can confer.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br> Matt</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"= >=C2=A0</p> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">-- </p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><b>Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | </b>Professor Emeritus</p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine <br> 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401<br> Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495<br> <br> <img id=3D"x_Picture_x0020_2" style=3D"width:1.302in; height:.5in" data-outlook-trace=3D"F:1|T:1" src=3D"cid:part2.WxBaI20v.w06HOoQ0@xxxxxxxx= 314.net" class=3D"" width=3D"125" height=3D"48= " border=3D"0"></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><br clear=3D"all"> </p> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">=C2=A0</p> </div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D""><span class=3D"x_gmailsignatureprefix">-- </span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Matthew Winn, AuD= , PhD</p> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Associate Professor</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">Speech-Language= -Hearing Sciences</p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"x_MsoNormal" style=3D"">University of Minnesota</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p><br> </p> </body> </html> --------------ehDXkC9RvnEGeLIm8XuzN0vd Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-Id: <part1.FJgj0dxC.AXPeWrxP@xxxxxxxx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAC0AAABCCAYAAADDuF8VAAAACXBIWXMAAC4jAAAuIwF4pT92 AAA57mlUWHRYTUw6Y29tLmFkb2JlLnhtcAAAAAAAPD94cGFja2V0IGJlZ2luPSLvu78iIGlk PSJXNU0wTXBDZWhpSHpyZVN6TlRjemtjOWQiPz4KPHg6eG1wbWV0YSB4bWxuczp4PSJhZG9i ZTpuczptZXRhLyIgeDp4bXB0az0iQWRvYmUgWE1QIENvcmUgNS42LWMxMzggNzkuMTU5ODI0 LCAyMDE2LzA5LzE0LTAxOjA5OjAxICAgICAgICAiPgogICA8cmRmOlJERiB4bWxuczpyZGY9 Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzE5OTkvMDIvMjItcmRmLXN5bnRheC1ucyMiPgogICAgICA8 cmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJkZjphYm91dD0iIgogICAgICAgICAgICB4bWxuczp4bXA9Imh0 dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20veGFwLzEuMC8iCiAgICAgICAgICAgIHhtbG5zOmRjPSJodHRw Oi8vcHVybC5vcmcvZGMvZWxlbWVudHMvMS4xLyIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6cGhvdG9z aG9wPSJodHRwOi8vbnMuYWRvYmUuY29tL3Bob3Rvc2hvcC8xLjAvIgogICAgICAgICAgICB4 bWxuczp4bXBNTT0iaHR0cDovL25zLmFkb2JlLmNvbS94YXAvMS4wL21tLyIKICAgICAgICAg ICAgeG1sbnM6c3RFdnQ9Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20veGFwLzEuMC9zVHlwZS9SZXNv dXJjZUV2ZW50IyIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6dGlmZj0iaHR0cDovL25zLmFkb2JlLmNv bS90aWZmLzEuMC8iCiAgICAgICAgICAgIHhtbG5zOmV4aWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5j b20vZXhpZi8xLjAvIj4KICAgICAgICAgPHhtcDpDcmVhdG9yVG9vbD5BZG9iZSBQaG90b3No b3AgQ0MgMjAxNyAoV2luZG93cyk8L3htcDpDcmVhdG9yVG9vbD4KICAgICAgICAgPHhtcDpD cmVhdGVEYXRlPjIwMTgtMTEtMjhUMTQ6MTA6MTUrMDE6MDA8L3htcDpDcmVhdGVEYXRlPgog ICAgICAgICA8eG1wOk1vZGlmeURhdGU+MjAxOC0xMS0yOVQxNTozODozNiswMTowMDwveG1w Ok1vZGlmeURhdGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4bXA6TWV0YWRhdGFEYXRlPjIwMTgtMTEtMjlUMTU6 Mzg6MzYrMDE6MDA8L3htcDpNZXRhZGF0YURhdGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDxkYzpmb3JtYXQ+aW1h Z2UvcG5nPC9kYzpmb3JtYXQ+CiAgICAgICAgIDxwaG90b3Nob3A6Q29sb3JNb2RlPjM8L3Bo b3Rvc2hvcDpDb2xvck1vZGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4bXBNTTpJbnN0YW5jZUlEPnhtcC5paWQ6 MzQ4ZGRkZDEtZmI2Zi0xZDQ3LWJlOTUtZDIzYjk2OTExODk4PC94bXBNTTpJbnN0YW5jZUlE PgogICAgICAgICA8eG1wTU06RG9jdW1lbnRJRD5hZG9iZTpkb2NpZDpwaG90b3Nob3A6NmUz Y2E0Y2ItZjNlNC0xMWU4LWE2NGQtYTRlM2VhMTcxM2NlPC94bXBNTTpEb2N1bWVudElEPgog ICAgICAgICA8eG1wTU06T3JpZ2luYWxEb2N1bWVudElEPnhtcC5kaWQ6ODYyZTE0ZmUtNzMy Mi00ZjQ3LWI5NmUtMDEyODQ0OGNkNDJiPC94bXBNTTpPcmlnaW5hbERvY3VtZW50SUQ+CiAg ICAgICAgIDx4bXBNTTpIaXN0b3J5PgogICAgICAgICAgICA8cmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaSByZGY6cGFyc2VUeXBlPSJSZXNvdXJjZSI+CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDxzdEV2dDphY3Rpb24+Y3JlYXRlZDwvc3RFdnQ6YWN0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICA8c3RFdnQ6aW5zdGFuY2VJRD54bXAuaWlkOjg2MmUxNGZlLTczMjItNGY0Ny1iOTZl LTAxMjg0NDhjZDQyYjwvc3RFdnQ6aW5zdGFuY2VJRD4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0 RXZ0OndoZW4+MjAxOC0xMS0yOFQxNDoxMDoxNSswMTowMDwvc3RFdnQ6d2hlbj4KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0OnNvZnR3YXJlQWdlbnQ+QWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wIENDIDIw MTcgKFdpbmRvd3MpPC9zdEV2dDpzb2Z0d2FyZUFnZW50PgogICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3Jk ZjpsaT4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaSByZGY6cGFyc2VUeXBlPSJSZXNvdXJjZSI+ CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDphY3Rpb24+c2F2ZWQ8L3N0RXZ0OmFjdGlvbj4K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0Omluc3RhbmNlSUQ+eG1wLmlpZDozNDhkZGRkMS1m YjZmLTFkNDctYmU5NS1kMjNiOTY5MTE4OTg8L3N0RXZ0Omluc3RhbmNlSUQ+CiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDp3aGVuPjIwMTgtMTEtMjlUMTU6Mzg6MzYrMDE6MDA8L3N0RXZ0 OndoZW4+CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDpzb2Z0d2FyZUFnZW50PkFkb2JlIFBo b3Rvc2hvcCBDQyAyMDE3IChXaW5kb3dzKTwvc3RFdnQ6c29mdHdhcmVBZ2VudD4KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0OmNoYW5nZWQ+Lzwvc3RFdnQ6Y2hhbmdlZD4KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPC9yZGY6bGk+CiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvcmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAgPC94bXBN TTpIaXN0b3J5PgogICAgICAgICA8dGlmZjpPcmllbnRhdGlvbj4xPC90aWZmOk9yaWVudGF0 aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8dGlmZjpYUmVzb2x1dGlvbj4zMDAwMDAwLzEwMDAwPC90aWZmOlhS ZXNvbHV0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8dGlmZjpZUmVzb2x1dGlvbj4zMDAwMDAwLzEwMDAwPC90 aWZmOllSZXNvbHV0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8dGlmZjpSZXNvbHV0aW9uVW5pdD4yPC90aWZm OlJlc29sdXRpb25Vbml0PgogICAgICAgICA8ZXhpZjpDb2xvclNwYWNlPjY1NTM1PC9leGlm OkNvbG9yU3BhY2U+CiAgICAgICAgIDxleGlmOlBpeGVsWERpbWVuc2lvbj40NTwvZXhpZjpQ aXhlbFhEaW1lbnNpb24+CiAgICAgICAgIDxleGlmOlBpeGVsWURpbWVuc2lvbj42NjwvZXhp ZjpQaXhlbFlEaW1lbnNpb24+CiAgICAgIDwvcmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uPgogICA8L3JkZjpS REY+CjwveDp4bXBtZXRhPgogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAK ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAK ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAo8P3hwYWNrZXQgZW5kPSJ3Ij8+MRSd/wAAACBjSFJN AAB6JQAAgIMAAPn/AACA6QAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF2+SX8VGAAAFnklEQVR42uyae2wUVRTG f1vswxasFdICGhSsCIIPTImNGvUPtT7a2CAEY0m0YlATQAz4NvzhW8QIaoyFiMZnCJX4IkGJ ykMlQlEiyEMeBlRsSqECCygF6x/zrdxeZmZnZ6fIJnuSze6de+fMt3fOPfc730ysgf/sSWAC 0EFniwHtQAuwAmgAlhv9s4DRLufh4qcDmAq8BHwBVKhvEzDc8nE98L5x3kPAawAnGYMGAKf4 XLQnMBi4DagFPtLxiiTn2TZI34ON84a4jOsDFBvtfokfOcbBPdZJG4FVwGpgn9X3IdBDv9fq TiQ+/1hjj1j9W3S81Riz0wX0Aau9zw20baM1i8OA/kCT1T9K33dpFhKfd6xxT1j9M41wCWV+ oM3Q2QU8bvUP1/dBoNn4tFrjdlj9h0nT/EDnW+2tVru3x3mFVrsHEVtOCmP3dzWYrgBtL7Lc TADdYeXRWCaA/t9ApgOaLOgs6CzoEyPlZRzomJX2OjIBdK41vj3Na8d8Ni5cKG5OGNBFXvw2 pB1JQglsbIeDgP7bave32s1pgt5r/O4FFFj9JVZ7dxDQ7VapNdXqb0oT9EZrpuut/jqrvdKN 6Ns2F4gD3YByFyramCboN4GxRvtVYKDu4NXAZUbfTyr7jgFd7FGAulmtS03p5ae7x7ivgVeA 8caxSR5jR3mVVFsVZ34SwkqV8ct9/tBWI147gN98xk4ANgj4IJeFtxB4BFjfCVBD8lmJycHB FG696Sce8JyhwOmK773AZtWXxwJqyHKPLOgs6IwBnX+c8ORHAboYRwLeBnwJjHHhCFEArcOR frcBTwGn+tJDj5SXp93pfpEZmyh9oG18cRpgrwJGAiNwZF3TdgHPAzNciJsr6HtwBOx+AS68 AfgEWKRdMp5kw6kErgWqcfTpZPYr8Kx4iSvoMcDDwHkhZ2438IPY2w7NUD7QFzgXRzI+LaTv dQL/dgJ0PfCCC389Ee1PYHIOcAhoy5Bs1wYcMsOjBngUuCSkw+0Kj3UKj4PAyVpkQxQe/UL6 XqGs8rHXQrxV4IPEdhPO85dFoq0dSQrZCi3Emzj6JMHP1gvsu0FZ3jhx2TOt45tV1cwHvk/j Vg8DbsZ5tlNu9W0DnsF5/JcyNc1Vvr4bWAO8rhQXtVWr9LpARcYMP4kiy6dPJNBl2iGruxjL jbpO76TSVIP/tjsZmGLUfGu1kudx9MlrOjZAlXYdcL6O7Qem6xMPCjoHuE9kqczngp+LNC3w KkA9rC9wg8hSlc+4FpGmF+ksoR0D+k7xjwEpgGgHlgFLge9w3iho0U6bB5QqpVUCVwCX63hQ +0Xpb7YJulTxNEkpJwrbYxCm4oh8rlEqXNCtBibivH9RFuGiKsBRWaMsGMq0k7Z1q3Fej1iu WDsrAudx4HcVC3FtUHkR+F0sReo9O6ZHKKYrUnC2E/gKWIIzAT9brLEEOEc+r1TFUpqC/1XA 06INvinvduABn+pir7bz+Th624EUQBQC12mCqn1ifgMwDXgj1W18PPAgcIbaS5SnGyPi4CUi TXW6A+AIltOAl9PhHvk47y2twV8tTdcqlb3eAv4KuyNmPGEqOk54iqIA3RN4TqR8GU4R3D1i oN218JeqZJvmorUECo9C8Y8pLmpPq7JGo8qssHaNIdb0ctlRp4t37A8CeqIoYp8AF94MfGqI NW1JMoUp1pQH8N8svWOmF+h6gR0Ycub2GWLNH8oABfrzCbEm7MtamwR+TgL0WHGPwgxIHAeA e3PED7ZnSLbbDsTN8KgCHhPfDWNbJCkkxJpEePSVhnIxcHZI39/gSM4LvRbiSIG/MICzbw2x ZnWA8Rcpa9QClwYY/6PAzgu6I9ZLrCl3UX3m4mjUa9O41UOV7m5xIWZbxOzmhNnGY0qB4wRw DvBZF8RqFXCH/shspThPie3fAQBNzUa47xYTtQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --------------ehDXkC9RvnEGeLIm8XuzN0vd Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image002.png" Content-Id: <part2.WxBaI20v.w06HOoQ0@xxxxxxxx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAAwCAMAAAALmIWlAAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9i ZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAADNQTFRFKzVYHCZM4eLn8PHzpKi30dTbaG+IlZqrs7fDWWB8 O0Nkd32UwsXPSlJwhoufDRhA////A68jmAAAABF0Uk5T/////////////////////wAlrZli AAACYklEQVR42uzY22KDIAwAUC7e6gjw/187gUC4OetaupflaTXKWSuBKNMuJptC+QMCP20a uPHBQCubBWU46K24uB7NfZ58ZqaMP8D8AEBHtT/goXnB8WPwBf8r1WYUXWxUOZobHcJXIMcf ONclmE4s0lrRzYBIOjvTjX5WV6YbP2ZQJ6TWjfiAbuYzHW7p+xpuolQrP83sjQ5nupnu6Lqa J92MbnSznulcfkBHpNXNY6y+c0JKnWX1eFeflQt5qcNESKnrQMrf6LSAXeiWkEoXdOU4nZBK xzPnoTohtW5ZZyK8W09Io6tYjyP1iDS6XbAeh815S0irS6zHUfXuB0Ok1S3W41AdEWh1/Nb7 UD1bWytd0LY4ThdnerYbBJ1taT5XBmy4J8mNnWagp5fbba6HeiTdneK6vNgoFj0EhyO4eSZT 6AlpdNXoNzqYi94GbIU0eqhHp3d5drRf4heZUo9Iq8vYptup6VB37H6m/W6m0hFpdaxH3/yK 9cHpVq5Zy59n2GMV/QxPGdV9NElPE9njyOozsfWWKq6j7bLuw97KPBnM/mX86//6n+tH/yLK P7AUXcyd80Lx53WnspB47ty5qKND1gLockfIFzHR7srpQ7X0+6GgHPNFXedPyaN1CPFli71z +ZBeTxbcI2RXxwOQj/lW/Ui610Z6gA4a32WRrssXYbO76V/Zy6FLnZVj/qCnqGcdZE1DeFKc ntWrMV/RZXCh7B/fpF/+8tQQx6J74y9/Oeuyrm75+Jyf8oKWH9CL1SYNJtJ91HTOAD2fdjPN 9UcsumwmDNYXqvPtOLa9pH8LMACnoV0siZAyOAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --------------ehDXkC9RvnEGeLIm8XuzN0vd-- --------------GMBt6FPbXPcXgJYEXPpp1eY0--