Suggestions I would make on people submitting work is that I think it's really important to be fairly balanced about the work. So as a journal editor, I feel an obligation to the readership, and I'm in the position to ask the author questions that the readers would not have the opportunity to ask. So I feel a sense of being able to, need to represent those unasked questions in the process and I will ask the author to address those, being mindful of what the readers might be asking them.

And like the readers, I think, I appreciate a very balanced approach to weighing the evidence and the limitations so that, in the end, the readers can feel like they have the information available to make a decision or be able to interpret the results and interpret the significance of this. And I think that that is appreciated down the road in terms of the way the scholarship is evaluated.

So I've also served on committees where tenure dossiers have been put forward and have been responsible for developing the case about that this person merits tenure. And I think people are well-served by having good editors that they've worked with so that they're able to address some of the issues and point out those issues that may arise in the tenure review process, too.

So having submitted to good journals, the work has been vetted carefully. And the tenure review process is pretty in-depth. And so it does you no service to be able to get work that slid by in some ways, but hasn't gone through that process where you've been able to address the limitations and show awareness of it, but then also be able to demonstrate, make a case for why the research is sound even after considering these limitations.